policy

Europe has just taken a 180-degree turn in its nuclear policy and has left Spain completely out of the game

by

The backdrop couldn’t be more tense. According to an official statement of the International Energy Agency (IEA)the crisis in the Middle East and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have deteriorated crude oil markets to the point of forcing the release of emergency reserves. In the midst of this climate of urgency, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has broken a historical taboo. During the Nuclear Energy Summit held in Paris, Von der Leyen has intoned the continental ‘mea culpa’: “Europe made a strategic mistake by moving away from a reliable and affordable source of low-emission energy.” The Brussels diagnosis. According to German Wellepoints out that electricity prices in Europe are “structurally too high” and hamper competitiveness. In 1990, a third of European electricity came from the atom; today it is only 15%. In fact, the former Energy Commissioner, Kadri Simson, warned of “serious problem” What it will mean for Europe to disconnect 98 nuclear reactors in the short term without solid support. 200 million euros for the atom. To correct this “error”, Von der Leyen has put 200 million euros on the table from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. But here we must make a fundamental stop to understand the debate: this money is not destined to build traditional macro nuclear power plants like the ones we know, but to the Small Modular Reactors (SMR). It is not nuclear as we know it. As detailed Spanish Radio Television (RTVE), the new strategy seeks to reduce risks for private investors and create “regulatory sandboxes” for these SMRs to be operational in the early 2030s. This nuance dismantles much of the current noise: Spain is closing traditional first and second generation reactors that have exhausted their design life. The EU is not betting on reviving that old model, but rather on financing SMR technology that is not yet commercially viable on a large scale. France: sovereignty on the lectern, protectionism on the border. The great winner of this turn is Emmanuel Macron. Coinciding with the 15th anniversary of Fukushima, the French president defended in Paris that nuclear power is Europe’s shield against hydrocarbon blackmail. However, behind this speech lies a fierce protectionist strategy, since France acts as an electrical “plug”. While Germany pays more than €100/MWh for electricity and Spain or Portugal register zero or negative prices due to their enormous wind and solar production, France blocks the Pyrenean interconnections. Paris needs to make profitable at all costs an investment of 300 billion euros in its nuclear park. Passing up Iberian solar energy would put downward pressure on its prices. Thanks to this wall, France has broken his record exporting 92.3 TWh to its northern neighbors, pocketing 5.4 billion euros, while criticizing the Spanish model as “unstable.” And the situation in Spain. On the one hand, the Peninsula is the continent’s gas lifeline. The country owns 35% of the LNG storage capacity of the EU thanks to its seven regasification plants. But this fortress has run into a diplomatic obstacle. Following President Pedro Sánchez’s refusal to support the military offensive in Iran (under the slogan “No to war”), the United States has threatened Spain with a trade embargo. Taking into account that the US supplied 44.4% of Spanish gas in January 2026, the consequences could be notable: analysts predict increases of up to 18% in the gas bill and 17% in electricity bills. To escape this fossil dependence and not waste renewable energy when prices fall to zero, Spain has activated a shock plan silent. In a single month (January 2026), Spain connected 57 megawatts worth of batteries to the electrical grid, more than in the previous three years combined, preparing to store its cheaper energy. The decline of the green agenda? Von der Leyen’s turn is not only energetic, it also has deep political significance. In an opinion column in The Countryjournalist Claudi Pérez accuses the president of the Commission of inoculating a “Trumpist virus” in the EU. By stating that Europe “can no longer be the guardian of the old world order”, Brussels relegates the green agenda and the rules-based international order to the background, moving towards a more militaristic and deregulatory vision. This discontent was highlighted with the protest of Greenpeace activists breaking into the Paris summit shouting “Nuclear energy fuels war.” Europe finds itself trapped in an unsustainable contradiction: it showers public money on nuclear promises for the next decade, assuming the risks of foreign uranium, while blocking its borders from the sun and southern winds that already produce cheap energy today. Image | Audiovisual Service and Clickgauche Xataka | Spain and Portugal would love to share the “free” energy they are generating these days. The problem is called France

China manufactures 90% of the world’s humanoid robots and the reason is not its industrial policy: it is crossing the street

by

On Chinese New Year, 16 Unitree humanoid robots danced a folk dance before almost a billion viewers. The West reacted as always: some with panic, others with disdain, others with an undisguised admiration that sometimes tends to concoct theories with more clichés regarding China than real analysis. None of those answers is entirely true and that blindness has a cost. The context. China manufactures about 90% of the humanoid robots sold in the world. In 2025, about 13,000 units were shipped, with Chinese companies (AgiBot, Unitree, UBTech…) dominating the ranking by volume, according to Omdia data collected by Bloomberg. Tesla, with all its brand reputation and all its industrial apparatus, internally deployed around 800 units of the Optimus that same year. The figure. He Unitree G1 It costs $13,500. He Tesla Optimus will exceed 20,000. That gap is the difference between being able to iterate ten times with the same budget or staying at one. Between the lines. The story circulating in the West has two versions, equally lazy: The first: all this is the five-year plan, the hand of the State, industrial policy made robot. The second, reserved for the most condescending: it is because they copy. Neither of them explains what is really happening. China’s advantage in robotics does not come from the Communist Party. It comes from the Pearl River Delta and the Yangtze Delta: the two densest manufacturing ecosystems on the planet. Motors, actuators, sensors, custom PCBs… everything is available within walking distance. Is what it describes Rui Xuan engineer who has worked in robotics startups in China and Silicon Valley. When Unitree wants to test a new joint design, it crosses the street and comes back with the right component. A team in San Francisco has to wait weeks to receive the same component from China. The background. That difference in iteration speed changes everything in hardware engineering. It stops being a problem of talent, because Chinese and American engineers are equally capable, and becomes a problem of infrastructure. Breaking a robot, learning, replacing it, and trying again: that’s what builds cumulative technical advantage. If breaking a robot costs three weeks of logistics, learning stops and times become longer. Yes, but. China does have state support, and it is completely legitimate to point this out. The government has injected a lot of money into that sector and has set production targets. But it’s not that Silicon Valley is an impoverished region: it has more capital, investors with more experience and resources, and more decades of experience financing high-risk bets. If this were a war to see who has the fattest checkbook, the United States would win handily. But it is not. Furthermore, Chinese state money comes with strings attached: it is classified as “state asset” and founders assume personal liability if the company fails. That pushes capital toward politically safe bets, not necessarily toward the most innovative ones. The question. Can the West make up ground in robotics? Yes, but not like he’s trying. Attracting foreign talent helps on the margin, but does not solve the underlying problem. The equalization involves building local supply chains capable of delivering a spare part in two days, not two weeks. And that is not an immigration or R&D problem. It is an industrial-based problem, and solving it takes many years of work. And of thankless work, from which those who arrive later may reap the fruits. Until then we are going to see many more viral videos of Chinese robots doing pirouettes with increasing naturalness. And it’s because they’ve built the best environment in the world to break things and try again. In engineering, that explains almost everything. Featured image | CCTV In Xataka | Folding clothes or taking apart LEGOs has always been a tedious task. Xiaomi’s new AI for robots has put an end to it

this time it takes aim directly at its ‘reputation abuse policy’

by

What Brussels has launched today is not just another technical note on how Google works, but a movement that points directly to the way in which it decides what we see when we search for information. An internal policy designed to combat spam has ended up at the center of a new European file because, according to the Commissionyou could be relegating content from legitimate media and publishers. An issue that, for the Commission, deserves to be thoroughly reviewed to determine if its application is having undesired effects. We are facing an action that opens an official procedure in which the Commission will evaluate whether Google is complying with the obligations of the DMA in relation to the treatment that publishers receive in its search engine. Brussels wants to check whether the access and positioning conditions comply with the equity criteria provided for services designated as gatekeeper. This initial phase does not involve attributing a violation, but it does activate a detailed process that will determine how the regulations are actually being applied. Politics under suspicion. Google includes ‘reputation abuse policy’ in its Search spam rules and presents it as a tool to address practices aimed at manipulating ranking in results when sites include content from commercial partners. From a technical perspective, the motivation makes sense: the ecosystem is full of practices that try to exploit gaps to obtain a better position in the results. The Commission’s question is whether this policy is affecting publications that use commercial collaborations within a legitimate editorial framework. For media outlets, these deals are an important source of revenue, and their demotion in Google Search can have real effects on audiences. Brussels wants to know to what extent its application may be penalizing actors who are not seeking to manipulate anything. The analysis will revolve around that fine line. DMA in action. The Digital Markets Law establishes its own regime for the platforms considered gatekeepersthe large platforms that act as a gateway between companies and users in the digital environment. These services are required to ensure that their internal rules are understandable, justified and reviewable by the Commission, even before there is demonstrated harm. The investigation is framed in that model: Brussels wants to validate that the policy applied by Google complies with the reinforced obligations that accompany that status. Blow to the revenue model. The executive vice president for a Clean, Fair and Competitive Transition, Teresa Ribera, was explicit about the point that most worries Brussels: “We are concerned that Google’s policies do not allow news publishers to be treated in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory manner in search results.” He also stressed that the loss of income comes “at a difficult time for the sector,” which makes this investigation more than just a technical review. A long and complicated relationship. Brussels has maintained constant scrutiny over Google for years, visible in sanctions like the 2,950 million euros imposed in September 2025 for practices in its advertising business, or in the 2017 Google Shopping fine, ratified by the European Court of Justice in 2024. This new investigation does not start from scratch: it adds to a history that reflects how the Commission has tightened its surveillance as the company’s activity has covered more sectors. Pressure from Washington. The case also comes at a time when some of the loudest criticism of the European digital framework comes from the United States. Donald Trump has denounced that measures like the DMA hurt American companies and has warned of possible additional tariffs if they persist. Without being part of the file, these statements illustrate the political context in which Google’s policy is examined and show how European regulation coexists with growing commercial sensitivity on the other side of the Atlantic. The possible outcomes. From now on, Brussels will examine documentation, ask Alphabet for clarification and evaluate whether the policy fits into the DMA’s obligations. If it detects non-compliance, it will inform the company of its conclusions and the measures it considers necessary to correct them. The procedure can be closed without sanctions, with internal adjustments by Google or with the imposition of formal obligations and, ultimately, fines. The Commission plans to complete the analysis within a period of up to twelve months. Images | sarah b | 1981 Digital In Xataka | Apple accepts crumbs in China: the 15% that shows who has the power

Behind this year’s Nobel Prize in Medicine there is a whole lesson in scientific policy for Spain and it does not seem that we are going to learn it

by

The Nobel Prizes arrive and, like every year, the media they are filled with reports on why Spain resists the great scientific awards of the contemporary world. And it is not a lie: the last Spaniard to win one in science, Severo Ochoa, did so 66 years ago. Being a relatively important country internationally, it is a real problem. What we did not suspect is that the Karolisnka Institute was going to make it so clear how ‘real’ this problem is. A little highlighted detail. At this point in the week, the history of the 2025 Nobel Prize in Medicine It has been counted as active and passive; But there is a detail that is worth dwelling on. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Shimon Sakaguchi discovered a subset of T lymphocytes that did not attack anyone or anything. They were a kind of “riot police” of the immune system: they suppressed the activity of other T lymphocytes. The discovery was momentous, but what came next was an enormous silence. Silence? But they just gave him the Nobel Prize! They just gave it to him now, but it was not a bed of roses. Sakaguchi’s idea made sense, but no one was quite clear why that was happening. And, in fact, many people were vehemently against his theses. It took almost a decade for two different teams to reach the same conclusion: the Japanese researcher was right and the key to everything. the problem was in the FOXP3 gene. It seems like a minor issue, but “this double discovery, the cellular discovery of Sakaguchi and the genetic discovery of Brunkow and Ramsdell, has completely changed the paradigm of immunology and has opened two great therapeutic avenues with immense potential.” The relevant question in Spain. This is all very well, but the really relevant question for our country is why in 2020, when the Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded CRISPR, it did not follow the same logic. Because yes, there are big differences between one discovery and the other: while the former rewarded the technological tool, this one has rewarded the discovery of the fundamental scientific bases. But it is not lost on anyone that the narrative of the award is not just an explanation: it is a framework that justifies inclusions and exclusions. The “forgetfulness” of the 2020 Nobel Prize. Francis Mojica himself he explained to us that “when we discovered CRISPR, I said to myself: “this is going to be crazy in biology” and then absolutely nothing happened.” In fact, that “nothing” lasted for many years. Years in which CRISPR seemed like a scientific curiosity without much importance and working on the subject, as Mojica did, was seen as an eccentricity. And finally, when the award came, it focused on “the development of a gene editing method (CRISPR-Cas9)” and was awarded to the two researchers who discovered that we could use the mechanism to our advantage; but no one remembered the person who discovered this mechanism. And it would be naive not to ask ourselves why. Even if we cannot know what really happened (the prize selection process has been hidden for 50 years), it is a good time to compare the abysmal differences between the research policy of Spain and that of Japan. While in the country of the rising sun, it has been investing in “scientific diplomacy” since the 90s; while Spain has made some isolated effort, yes; but insufficient. This is not about creating intricate conspiracy theories. It is clear that we will not be able to say what would have happened if Francis Mojica were Japanese, but we can ask ourselves what extra-scientific factors intervene in this type of awards and what Spain is doing to value its contribution to current contemporary science. That is, not only what resources are dedicated to research; but what is Spain’s ‘soft-power’, what resources does it put to make our researchers visible, to spread favorable stories or to amplify the work of our teams. The answer to all this, I’m afraid, is “too little.” Image | Ryan Faulkner | Daniel Prado In Xataka | A Nobel with 30 years of history: the discovery of the “peacekeeping gene” that controls our defenses is the 2025 Nobel Prize in Medicine

It is a fire test for your update policy

by

All manufacturers have a huge challenge ahead: offer a minimum of five years of updates. It is a European policy that applies to everyone equally and that, however, has a small print: five years of updates is not the same as five years of major updates. That is why Samsung’s last movement is striking with his New Galaxy A17a low -end terminal that not only complies with European law, but goes one step further offering six years of operating system updates. And that is a fire test. About the mobile. It is an entry range terminal with four or eight Gigas of RAM, 128 or 256 GB of internal storage, a processor Exynos 1330 For the 5G model and a Mediatek Helio G99 For the 4G model. The exynos dates from 2023, while the Helio G99 began to see it in 2022. In other words, they are somewhat old components and with little power whose objective is to maintain the relatively low price: 230 euros For the 4/128 GB version and 309 euros For 8/256 GB. Thus samsung money earns: the secret is on the iPhone Samsung Galaxy A17 5g | Image: Mediamarkt The software issue. It is where the crumb is. The device is launched with one UI 7 based on Android 15 and an ambitious promise: six years of operating system updates. That is, who bought this device aspires to try Android 21. This is something that, to date, was only possible in high -end mobiles. The difference is evident: a high -end mobile as the Z fold7 It has an engine with power more than enough to endure what they throw for a long time. The Galaxy A17 is another story. The challenge. Updating a mobile is not pressing a button. It is a work that requires precise optimizations adapted to the hardware of each terminal. In addition, it is a job that will have to be done in more devices, since the Galaxy A17 5G of 2025 surely follows the Galaxy A17 (or A18) of 2026, the one of 2027, 2028, etc., which, in turn, will also have to be updated. Update devices will accumulate over the years, which will make this task even more complex This concrete model will have to add all the others that, at least in Europe, will have to update for at least five years. In this way, the Samsung of the year 2030 will be updating tropecient mobiles that not only have to receive the update, but to continue working properly. Not only have to update Android 17 to Android 18, but to do so that the terminal remains usable. Where is the challenge? In hardware. While a Snapdragon 8 Elite Or their Mediatek counterpart they have more than plenty of to endure the pull for five, six or seven years, an exynos 1330 or a Helio G99 have it more raw. It is not just that the processor already starts to fall short, but that a high -end device has faster memories (RAM LPDDR5X, UFS 4.1 memories…). In the long run, a low -end mobile, however updated it is, will begin to fall short of The constant glotton of the functions of the operating systemapps and games that, update after updating, demand more resources. Samsung Galaxy A17 5g | Image: Mediamarkt The fire test. The Galaxy A17 is, therefore, a device that is worth not losing sight. Not because of the device itself, but to see how a terminal of these characteristics evolves by being exposed to an ambitious update policy that, to date, only applied to the high -end terminals. Because remember: Samsung promises six years of operating system updates, while the EU demands a minimum of five years of dry updates. They do not specify that there are five Android jumps. What Samsung puts on the table is much more juicy. The promise. Anyway, we cannot forget that this promise to offer five, six or seven years of Android updates is quite new. And above all, it is still about to fulfill. Removing Apple and Google, whose update policies speak for themselves, the rest of the brands have much to demonstrate. Samsung He started offering seven years of updates from the Galaxy S24. Honor the same from Magic7 Pro Honor. Xiaomi promises Six years From the Xiaomi 15. Motorola five years From the EDGE 50 PRO. Oppo and Realme, on the other hand, four years in some of its most powerful mobiles. We cannot analyze this now, a year after these ads. We will have to do with this in 2029, 2030 and 2031. It will be then when we leave doubts and we will see whether or not the promise are fulfilling not only in the high range, but in the low and medium range. Cover image | Mediamarkt, Pexels In Xataka | The promise of the seven years of updates has a small print and we are already beginning to see it

Elon Musk attacks the ideologist of US Tariff Policy

by

The global economy faces one of the most tense moments in its history, after the implementation of the new US tariff policies that it has given by amortized World free trade. The reciprocal tariffs have not only rekindled the fears of a world recessionbut they have also hit some of the world’s most innovative companies hard. Among the main affected: Elon Musk, whose companies will receive a hard blow for the commercial war that the US has started with China and Europe. Elon Musk doesn’t like tariffs. Elon Musk has expressed clearly its opposition to the new tariffs driven by Donald Trump. During the weekend he proposed a Commercial Agreement of “Zero Tariffs” between the United States and Europe. In addition, Musk shared in x A video by economist Milton Friedman highlighting the benefits of free trade and criticized Peter NavarroTrump’s commercial advisor and main ideologist of Trump’s tariff policies, ensuring that: “Navarro is darker than a sack of bricks.” According to published The Washington Postthe confrontation between Musk and Navarro has been climbing. Musk has publicly denounced that these policies are harmful, not only for their companies, but also for the American economy in general. These statements show the distancing between Musk and Trump’s government. Tesla is more than an assembler. The origin of the crossroads between Musk and Navarro were A few statements in which the Economic Advisor of the White House assured that Tesla was little more than a pieces. Tesla is among the companies most affected by tariff policies. According to Nikkei Asiabetween 20% and 25% of the components used in the manufacture of Tesla cars are imported, while 40% of materials related to Electric batteries They come from Chinese suppliers, although these batteries and their cars are manufactured in the US gigafactories. However, the main stumbling block is not the extra cost of its supply chain for tariffs, but the voltage generated with Chinawhere the brand enjoys A privileged position And Musk had been acting as a mediator bridge. If the Chinese government intensifies its offensive against US commercial interests, the competitiveness of Tesla in front of byd or other manufacturers. “It is important to note that Tesla has not been unscathed from this problem. The impact of tariffs on Tesla remains significant,” public Musk a few days ago. Space tariffs: its effect in Spacex. Spacex has also felt the coup of tariffs in their meats. Export restrictions from China and Tariffs to China They are being a serious obstacle in the Company’s supply chain. “Tariffs are generating challenges in various facets of Spacex operations, including the costs of the supply chain, international contracts and the regulatory environment,” He pointed outto Forbes Maxime Puteaux, main advisor of the space consultant Novaspace. This problem could have long -term consequences. On the one hand, they affect Spacex’s ability to comply with international contracts, including those of the Satellite display For Starlink. On the other hand, these increases could slow down and even put development at risk of projects such as Starship, a key piece for future missions to Mars. Musk has warned that this type of commercial policies endangers American technological leadership in strategic sectors such as aerospace. “There are certain components or elements that are used in the construction of high -tech products such as Spacex that do not have many alternative suppliers, so the risk of concentration is aggravated when costs increase exponentially,” declared to Forbes James Gellert, Executive President of the Raphydrification Supply Chain Analysis Firm The AI ​​is not fought. The AI ​​does not get rid of the scourge of tariffs, so Xai, the growing company Musk’s artificial intelligence, also faces some problems for tariffs on key components, such as electrical equipment and servers for Your data centers. This increase in expenses not only affects the competitiveness of the company, but could limit its ability to face international rivals in the field of artificial intelligence, a Sector where China and Europe are advancing quickly. Collateral damage of tariffs in x. In the commercial war caused by tariff that economists predict. One of the main sources of X income is advertising. The economic difficulties of companies can make the company suffer much more for The lack of advertisers. In addition, the social network of X is much more exposed to indirect reprisals of the affected countries, which could harden their policies for privacy and data protection, matter that already is being investigated x In Europe, as he published The New York Times. In Xataka | The great fortunes are bleeding with the collapse of the bag. Warren Buffett has hit his old recipe again Image | Flickr (The White House)

Rubio promises changes in foreign policy under Trump’s “America First” philosophy

by

Marco Rubio was sworn in as secretary of state, the country’s chief diplomat and the highest-ranking position in the Cabinet, second only to the vice president and president. After a unanimous vote in the Senate, Marco Rubio defended his department’s employees but warned of changes coming under the Trump administration. Speaking at the swearing-in ceremony, Vice President JD Vance described Rubio as a “necessary change of course after a generation of failed foreign policy.” “He’s a bipartisan solution-seeker, a guy who can really get things done, but he’s a conservative with great principles and vision,” Vance said. “And I think more than anyone I’ve met in Washington in recent years, Senator Rubio, I think, understands President Trump’s distinctive priorities.” Thus, after taking the oath of office, Rubio said that “one of the main objectives of American foreign policy will be the promotion of peace.” “Of course, peace through strength, peace always without abandoning our values.”but I think it is extraordinary that it is something that needs to be said and that it has not been said enough in recent times,” added the new secretary. “As for the task before us, President Trump was elected to keep promises and he will keep them. And his main promise when it comes to foreign policy is that the State Department’s priority will be the United States. It will promote the national interests of this country. And he has given us a very clear mandate” “President Trump has made it very clear that everything we do must be justified by the answer to one of three questions: Does it make us stronger, does it make us safer, and does it make us more prosperous? If you don’t do one of those three things, we won’t do it. And that is the objective and that is the task, and that is the mission,” he concluded. Later, Rubio was received in the lobby of the State Department with applause from dozens of workers from this agency. Rubio once again reiterated his firm commitment to advancing Trump’s “America First” political platform, and warned that changes would occur in the State Department as a result. “There will be changes, but the changes do not have to be destructive. They do not have to be punitive,” anticipated the new head of US diplomacy. Rubio stated that the State Department needs to “act faster than ever because the world is changing faster than ever.” “It is an honor to lead this agency. I hope to do so with distinction and integrity, working harder than anyone in this position. And that will not be easy, because there have been very hard-working people before me,” he added. Keep reading:· Marco Rubio highlights sovereignty and economic power of Mexico and recognizes challenges for the United States· Pam Bondi, nominated for attorney general, says at her hearing that she has to study the 14th Amendment· Marco Rubio makes history as the first Hispanic to be Secretary of State

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.