reason

In China, taking a taxi is already cheaper than using your own vehicle for one reason: electric cars

by

China is experiencing a peculiar situation: on its streets, it is now cheaper to get around by taxi than by private car. According to the latest data from the Ministry of Transport collected by the Reuters agency, lTaxi trips grew by 6% since the outbreak of the Hormuz crisisa phenomenon that coincides with the increase in fuel prices and the enormous electrification of urban fleets. This percentage translates into more than 3,050 million taxi trips in the month of May alone, demonstrating that the international geopolitical situation has a great impact on people’s daily lives. The context. The war in Iran and the situation in the Strait of Hormuz have caused Chinese crude oil purchases to reach historic lows. Last June, oil imports had a collapse of 41.3% year-on-yearwhich placed them at their lowest level in a decade since October 2016, with only 29.27 million tons (about 7.12 million barrels per day). Added to this is also the low production that the national refineries are having due to a fairly low internal demand. All of this has created the perfect cocktail to generate a shortage situation that has skyrocketed prices, among other things, of gasoline. The secret is in the electrical. This is where the taxi comes into play. Although fuel prices rise every day, the rates for this type of transport in China are becoming cheaper. This is because, as Reuters indicates, almost half of the country’s taxi fleet is electric (a condition that in cities covers almost 100% of the car supply) and, therefore, is not as dependent on volatile oil prices, making it an effective shield from China. in front of shock of Hormuz. But not only that. In recent times, the increasingly easier access to an electric vehicle and the slowdown of the Asian country’s economy has pushed many Chinese citizens to take the leap to be independent professionals and look for work in the mobility sector as drivers with their own car. According to Reuters, companies like DiDi, the main Chinese MaaS application, have grown thanks to this phenomenon. In this case, the company has incorporated more than 2 millions of hybrid or electric vehicles in the last year, which represents a total of more than 8 million fossil fuel-free models in its fleet. Thus, there is more supply and more competition and the rates, consequently, are much cheaper. The user wins. This new trend has already flooded the Asian country’s social networks and, in addition to the lower rates and savings on gasoline, many Chinese citizens point out the comfort of the trip and the ease of not having to look for parking as other benefits of opting for a taxi, as expressed by Yang, owner of a gasoline car, to Reuters. However, not everything is risk-free, since these economics professions in demand -such as those of a professional driver, riders and couriers – are in high demand and could end up saturating the market. A change forever? Since the crisis, it is no secret that the world is getting used to living with a 9% less oil which previously passed through Hormuz. Like many other countries, China is now seeking to be less vulnerable to international volatility and rely less on fossil fuels.. It does so in a very clear commitment to leading decarbonization by dominating the global production of solar panels, batteries and, of course, electric vehicles. The big question is whether this change responds solely to the rise in oil prices or whether it will end up consolidating a change in habits in the mentality of Chinese citizens even when the energy market stabilizes again. Cover image | Teresa Wang In Xataka | China has so many electric cars running on its streets that it is going to use them to generate energy for homes

It took 15 years for computers to improve the productivity of companies. AI may take longer for one reason: sabotage

by

We keep hearing that AI is going to replace employees in their jobs and that this will mean an apocalypse in the labor market. While it is true that a paradigm shift is coming, even the most ominous voices they have toned down their speech by slowing down the real impact about employment. Four decades ago something similar happened with the personal computer. The offices were filled with computers that did the work of various accountants, but the companies’ balance sheets they didn’t notice its benefits nothing for years. Just like collect Fortunea Goldman Sachs economist has just reviewed that history with a magnifying glass and her conclusion is that AI could take even longer than computers to begin to work. demonstrate its benefits. The J-curve of PCs. Elsie Peng, economist at Goldman Sachs, has analyzed What happened after the arrival of the PC in 1981. The data suggests that in the first four years of the implementation of computers, productivity fell a little. Then, that productivity stagnated another four. Only in the eighth year did the first signs of growth in productivity attributable to the use of these new technologies begin to be noticed. Its peak came twelve years after its release. The trend that the implementation of computers in companies registered is known as J curve and, before computers, it was already experienced by other disruptive technologies in the labor market, such as the steam engine and the arrival of electricity. If AI is “the new PC”, that curve would place the first signs of impact around 2030, and its peak performance would not arrive until 2034. It’s not AI, it’s teleworking. From Goldman Sachs They admit that much of the impact of current AI is still not noticeable in official figures. This happens despite the huge investment figures that companies are making in AI systems. In the eighties with the PC it happened exactly the same: Chips and hardware were expensive and applications that brought real value, like the Internet, took years to have a large enough critical mass of users to have an impact on real productivity. In fact, according to the investigations conducted by Stanford expert Nick Bloom, the recent increase in productivity that has been recorded would not respond to the arrival of AI, but to the massive implementation of teleworking after the Covid-19 pandemic. You don’t invest in technology, you invest in processes. According to the data it collects Fortune According to the Goldman Satch report, for every dollar spent on hardware by companies in the 1990s, another dollar and seventy cents was needed for something that is not always taken into account: redesigning how people worked. In other words, it was not enough to fill office tables with computers, but all processes had to be redesigned and staff trained to make the technology have a visible impact. This expense in reorganizing did not take off until a decade after the arrival of the PC to the offices. The companies that changed their way of working won, not those that bought the hardware first. Investment in data centers for AI is growing faster than then. But the expense of reorganizing work with AI it goes slower than in the nineties with PCs. A survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated at about 280 billion dollars in intangible spending linked to AI in 2026. When the employee says no. However, the Goldman Satch analyst highlights a big difference between the implementation scenario of computers and that of AI: computers did not have workers against them. This scenario may still delay that peak productivity expected for 2034. Work reorganization is not done on its own, but depends on the employees. If a large part of the workforce resists, the implementation becomes complicated. A study of Writer and Workplace Intelligence to 2,400 workers found that 29% of employees sabotage in some way your company’s AI strategy. Among young people, the figure rises to 44%. Other survey of WalkMe points in the same direction. 54% of workers consciously avoided using AI tools at least once in the last 30 days. They preferred to do the work themselves. Harvard researchers they have named it. They call it self-disruptive technology. Employees do not reject AI because it fails, but because they feel that threatens your job. The study revealed that at least 30% of generative AI projects will end up abandoned due to this employee rejection. In Xataka | We thought that AI was going to take our position. The reality is that it is making us work more and rest less Image | Unsplash (Flipsnack)

Warren Buffett is ending one of the largest philanthropic relationships in history for a reason: Jeffrey Epstein

by

For almost twenty years, Warren Buffett took advantage of the summer break to convert part of his Berkshire Hathaway shares and donate them for philanthropic purposes. For much of those two decades of giving, the Gates Foundation had been the main recipient of the billions distributed by the veteran investor. However, last year something changed and the 2026 cast confirms it: Warren Buffett no longer trusts the foundation of his former friend Bill Gates. Like every year, the “Oracle of Omaha” has made his annual donation and, for the second consecutive year, the Foundation of his old friend Bill Gates has been left without a single dollar. The reason has a first and last name: Jeffrey Epstein. A promise for life. In 2006, Buffett signed a commitment that he himself described as irrevocable. In your original letter To Bill and Melinda Gates, the millionaire investor promised to donate shares with several conditions. As Pulitzer-nominated journalist Tim Schwab relates in his book ‘The Bill Gates problem‘those conditions were: The funds had to be spent within the year they were received, discounting the 5% of assets that foundations must donate by law. Bill, Melinda or someone from the Gates family he had to remain active at the head of the foundation. The donations had to be counted as charitable contributions, which for tax purposes taxed differently to gifts and donations. Those conditions made Buffett the foundation’s largest individual donor. According to the official statement of Berkshire Hathaway, this year has converted 8,000 Class A shares into 12 million Class B shares, but with a totally different destination than usual. Epstein changed everything. The first cracks in the relationship between Gates and Buffett began with the Bill and Melinda divorce in 2021. The veteran Omaha investor was very close to Melinda’s values ​​and her management skills. Those cracks soon they became a breakup when the Department of Justice declassified documents that revived doubts about the Gates contacts with Jeffrey Epstein, the financier convicted of sexual crimes. In their statements to Congressadmitted that meeting with Epstein put his reputation and job at risk. Buffett, for his part, described that relationship as “unpleasant” in an interview with CNBCalthough he clarified that he has also made a mistake when choosing friends. His children take over from Gates. Buffett insists the decision is not just about Epstein. According to what he told Reutershis three children Susie, Howard and Peter already they have instructions to manage the distribution of his fortune. This year the distribution has gone to four family foundations. The bulk, 9 million shares, went to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, in honor of his late wife. The rest has been divided between the Sherwood Foundation, which Susie runs, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, which her middle son runs, and the NoVo Foundation, run by her youngest son, Peter. Goal: spend $140 billion by 2034. The most striking thing about the distribution of donations this year has not only been the confirmation of the break with the Gates Foundation. Warren Buffett has advanced the schedule to divest his entire stake in Berkshire Hathaway, some $140 billion. In previous communicationsthe millionaire claimed to have planned to distribute it ten years after his death. According to your own releasenow “My goal is to dispose of all of my Berkshire shares within approximately eight years… I am hopeful that all three of them will be able to complete the distribution of my shares by December 31, 2034.” Buffett himself acknowledged that “Of course, mortality is unpredictable, but my remaining shares will be donated to all four foundations in one form or another by December 31, 2034.” His children will gradually sell his remaining shares, some 188,290 Class A shares, until they exhaust a fortune that for almost twenty years was linked to the projects of the Gates Foundation. In Xataka | The True Legacy of the Duty Free Founder: How Chuck Feeney Inspired Bill Gates and Warren Buffett Image | Flickr (Statsministerens kontor, Fortune Live Media)

GPT-5.6 is probably the best AI model in the world. And precisely for that reason, the majority does not need it.

by

Yesterday OpenAI publicly released GPT-5.6its new family of AI models with three variants: Sol, the most powerful, Terra, more balanced, and Luna, the most cost-efficient. One idea stood out in that release: that GPT-5.6 is probably the best model in the world. And precisely for that reason, the vast majority will never need it. As part of the launch, he published a nice video in which he showed how a farmer in Japan, an entrepreneurial couple in New York and a mathematician in Poland had used it for their work. Then we go back to the video and those three scenarios. But a preview: two of those three stories demonstrate just the opposite of what OpenAI wanted to demonstrate. In the official announcement OpenAI also told us about how this was the most capable family of AI models they had ever released and they included the traditional huge string of internal benchmark results to prove it. According to internal tests, GPT-5.6 Sol is the best existing AI model both in programming and in the use of agentic tools in the terminal (among many other scenarios). Source: OpenAI. Their data revealed that we are facing what theoretically it is the best AI model in the world currently. And the interesting thing is that independent studies like those of Artificial Analysis They corroborate it: in several of its tests GPT-5.6 even surpassed Fable 5, Anthropic’s frontier model that until now was the great reference in this industry. Source: Artificial Analysis. The model certainly appears to be spectacular. Those responsible for ARC Prize, that benchmark in which most AI models repeatedly crash, commented how GPT-5.6 Sol was still the first frontier model to solve one of the puzzles of their new benchmark, ARC-AGI 3. No other had come close to that milestone, and according to this organization “it is the best model when it comes to orienting yourself in a situation that you have never encountered.” All that these tests validate is the idea that we are facing a prodigious model. And the problem is precisely that: that most users will probably never need it. Too powerful for most of us Let’s go back to the video at the beginning. Of the three use cases mentioned, two are quite trivial. GPT-5.6 helped the Japanese farmer create a remote control system for his greenhouse with a Raspberry Pi. He helped the New York couple build a curious cereal box business. Nothing in those two tasks seems to require the best model in the world. In fact, they are precisely the type of projects that have been being resolved for months with much cheaper models. With the third scenario, that of the Polish mathematician, things change: this academic was trying to solve a conjecture that he had been working on for three years. No previous model had been able to help him, but with GPT-5.6 he managed to reveal a totally new idea, he says. One of his final comments precisely makes it clear who GPT-5.6 Sol is for: “If you have that kind of audacity to try to do something really big, you won’t be scared of the incredible computing power because you can organize it with the model.” That is the key to the issue: most users are not trying to solve mathematical conjectures that are almost impossible to solve. Most we use tools in a much more everyday wayand that is completely logical and reasonable. That’s why there are many more more modest and affordable models, and why the GPT-5.6 Sol, even if it makes sense, will be a very unprofitable model for most people. It is not a model for counting R’sof course. In fact, every time a new model comes into our hands, It is very difficult to appreciate if it is really better than the previous ones because the tasks we propose are usually solved very well with the existing ones. There are cases in which differences are seen—in especially complex programming, for example—but here we are faced with a situation that we have lived before on several occasions. This happens, for example, with modern hardware: very few people need the most advanced processors or an RTX 5090 to play, because more modest CPUs and GPUs give access to a truly fluid experience. We don’t usually need a camera either. Hasselblad of 15,000 euros for our vacations, and a good cell phone of 500-1,000 euros at this point solves the problem wonderfully. The good thing about all this is what also happens with those examples that we mentioned before: what is extraordinarily expensive and powerful today will end up no longer being so because other even better (and probably more expensive) AI models will appear on the horizon. The question is no longer “which model is more “intelligent”?”, but “Which model is smart enough to solve this task at the lowest cost?“. That explains why there are variants like Sol, Terra and Luna. Maybe in two years GPT-5.6 Sol will be the cheap model we use to correct an email or plan a vacation. The recent history of AI invites us to think precisely that: today’s frontier models end up becoming tomorrow’s everyday models. Perhaps that is the true meaning of GPT-5.6. Not that today almost no one needs so much intelligence, but that in a few years we will probably we all take it for granted. In Xataka | OpenAI just launched GPT-Live: ChatGPT voice mode has learned to listen, shut up and respond better

There’s a reason China doesn’t fire nuclear missiles from its most dangerous submarine. You just broke that rule

by

The greatest strength of a nuclear submarine is not its firepower, but that no one knows where it is. This ability to remain hidden for months has made these ships the most important pillar of nuclear deterrence since the Cold War and explains why each movement related to them is analyzed with a magnifying glass. It wasn’t just any test. China has insisted that the launch was part of its annual training and that it had previously notified the countries of the region. However, few maneuvers generate as much attention as the ballistic missile shot from a strategic nuclear submarine into the Pacific Ocean. Not only that, since it was an action practically unpublished in decades. Beijing had been avoiding a public demonstration of this type for years and, precisely for this reason, the test has been interpreted as a message directed far beyond the military exercise itself. The letter that is never shown. Missile submarines are the most discreet and valuable component of any nuclear power. Its main advantage is in remaining hidden for weeks or months, guaranteeing a retaliatory capacity even if the country suffers a first attack. This need to maintain secrecy explains why China has barely made public launches from this type of platform and that each demonstration has enormous strategic weight. The signal was directed to the United States. Although the Chinese authorities they emphasized that the missile carried a training warhead and was not directed against any country, the context tell another story. Western analysts believe that the test was intended to demonstrate that Chinese submarines can now launch very long-range missiles. from nearby areas on its own coasts and continue hitting targets thousands of kilometers away. In other words, Beijing wanted to remind that its maritime deterrence capacity is entering a new phase of maturity. Type 094 Submarine A doctrine designed to reduce risks. Everything indicates that the launch took place from protected waters close to China, a strategy known as “bastion.” Instead of sending its submarines to the center of the Pacific, the idea is to keep them under the cover of national aviation, fleet and anti-missile systems while retaining the ability to attack very distant targets. If the new JL-2 or JL-3 missiles They fulfill the benefits attributed to them by analysts, these submarines no longer need to travel too far from home to reach US territory. Nuclear expansion continues. Because the test comes in full modernization process of Chinese strategic forces. Beijing is building new silos for intercontinental missiles, deploying more advanced generations of land-based missiles and increasing the number of ballistically capable nuclear submarines. Pentagon estimates suggest that the Chinese arsenal could exceed a thousand nuclear warheads before 2030a transformation that is changing the military balance in the Indo-Pacific. The Pacific responds worried. Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Taiwan reacted criticizing a pitch which they consider destabilizing for the region, despite having received prior notification. The criticism was not directed solely at the missile, but in the context of a rapid increase in Chinese military capabilities and an increasingly visible naval presence in the Pacific. For many governments, the test represents a new step in a show of force strategy that had already included tests of intercontinental missiles and naval maneuvers increasingly distant from Chinese coasts. The real novelty was not the missile. It is known that China has had ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons for years. What is really new is that he has decided show publicly how one of its strategic submarines can use them, something it had almost completely avoided until now. In fact, the demonstration increases the credibility of your ability of retaliation, forces its rivals to assume that these submarines are fully operational and confirms that Beijing is willing to use its military tests as another tool of political and strategic deterrence. Image | PLA In Xataka | Satellite images leave no doubt: China has launched an underwater creature into the sea that defies naval engineering In Xataka | From cultivating the field to sailing underwater: the Chinese farmer who makes homemade submarines in his free time

In 1993, no one could find the supposed red ninja from ‘Mortal Kombat’. There was a reason: it didn’t exist yet

by

There was a time when the secrets of video games came in arcade machines, magazines, and conversations from someone who swore they had seen something impossible. Around the first ‘Mortal Kombat‘, that something impossible had the shape of a red ninja and a strange name: Ermac. The game had already shown that it could hide characters, so many players continued to look at the screen with the suspicion that there was another fighter waiting to be found. The clue that fueled that search was not born as a character, but as a technical entry within the game itself. Ed Boon, co-creator of ‘Mortal Kombat’, explained that During the development of the first game, the software had sections of code that, in theory, it was never supposed to reach. If that happened, the system incremented an error counter that the team could review on an internal audit screen. To shorten that record, Boon wrote an assembly macro called ERMAC, short for Error Macro. A rumor too good not to end up being true The detail that changed everything was where that counter appeared. Boon explained that the ERMACS number was listed right after the record of times the players had fought Reptile, who was a hidden character in the first ‘Mortal Kombat’. The association was almost inevitable: if Reptile existed and was counted there, Ermac could seem like another secret of the same type. For a player looking at that screen without knowing the code behind it, the name didn’t sound like an internal tool, but like someone. From there, the gap was filled by the collective imagination. Boon summed it up quite clearly long ago in X: rumors about Ermac became legend and some players insisted that they had actually faced him. The important precision is right after, because the co-creator of ‘Mortal Kombat’ cut the story with a short sentence: “They didn’t do it :)”. There was no hidden red ninja in the first game, but rather a misreading that had found the perfect ecosystem to grow. Ermac in ‘Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3’ The most revealing part is not only in the code, but in the trace left by the conversation. Alleged clue linked to Electronic Gaming Monthly dates back to 1993and the rumor continued to appear in forums long after: Mortal Kombat Online discussed it in threads from 2003 and later years. Boon recalled that in ‘Mortal Kombat II’ Reptile stopped being just a hidden fighter and became part of the playable roster, while the game added three other secret characters: Smoke, Jade and Noob Saibot. It was a clear sign that ‘Mortal Kombat’ was still playing with the idea of ​​the hidden, even if Ermac wasn’t there yet. For some players, that was enough to keep the search open a little longer. Ermac in ‘Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3’ The twist came in 1995, when ‘Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3’ finally turned Ermac into a real fighter. Boon explained it as part of a broader decision: for ‘Mortal Kombat 3’ they began to transform some myths into elements of the game, starting with the Animalities, the animal endings of the saga, and in ‘Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3’, the expanded version of 1995, they ended up adding Ermac to the roster. The character that many had searched for ahead of time now appeared as the red ninja that the community had already imagined, but with an important difference: this time he did exist. Ermac in ‘Mortal Kombat 1’ From there, Ermac stopped depending on rumor and began to have a life of his own within the saga. Boon recalled that, over the years, the character appeared in several ‘Mortal Kombat’ games and ended up accumulating history, background and a place within the lore. This evolution does not erase its origin, rather it makes it more peculiar: first it was an internal abbreviation, then an interpretation of the players and finally a fighter with an identity. Few characters summarize the relationship between error, community and canon so well. The last turn of the story came with ‘Mortal Kombat 1‘, the installment developed by NetherRealm Studios and published by Warner Bros. Games in September 2023 as a reboot of the saga. Boon brought back Ermac’s origin at the time because the character was about to arrive in the game’s roster as downloadable content. It also served as the perfect context to present a fighter who had started as an error counter and continued to function, decades later, as a claimant. Images | YouTube Capture (Torne) | In Xataka | Independent analysts agree: “The Steam Machine is an expensive curiosity, not a gaming device for the masses”

Sony has told you why it stops selling games in physical format. The real reason, of course, is the same as always: money

by

Sony has announced that in January 2028 will stop manufacturing physical discs for PlayStation. Among the brief reasons given for making this decision is adapting to the player’s preferences, and following the trends that rule the industry: digital games sell more than physical ones, therefore, this is the choice of the players, which must be adhered to. However, what you have to look at there to find Sony’s true motives is “best sellers.” And specifically, we have to ask ourselves what economic benefit Sony extracts from these sales. The clear accounts. You just have to take note of the profit percentages that Sony makes with each game sold to understand the operation. According to the analysis of consultant Serkan Toto, Kantan GamesSony receives around 54% more for each digital copy of its own game than for the same physical copy. At a price of 70 dollars, a digital game leaves you the full 70 dollars, because there is no external store that takes commission (of course, from there you have to extract development, marketing and corporate costs, if the game is from an external studio). The same title on disc, after deducting the distributor’s margin (about 30%) and the manufacturing cost (about 5%), is left with a profit of about $45.50. Although the calculation is approximate and countless external actors must be taken into account (especially third parties), the comparison makes clear the maxim that is guiding these decisions: the fewer intermediaries, the greater the profit margin per unit. Less physical. Added to this is that the physical aspect already weighs little in the company’s overall income statement. According to a corporate report of the company itselfphysical software represented only 3% of its revenue in 2024. All these decisions must also be contextualized: at a time when Your Playstation 6 can cost a thousand euros sales price and that the current component crisis promises not only to continue, but directly double next yearcutting that 3% can save millions. Kill the second hand. There is another figure that should be taken into account: resale. Every second-hand record that changes ownership is a sale from which Sony does not see a euro. An Alinea Analytics analyst said that “what this is all about is profitability and control for PlayStation”, two very juicy terms in this new situation because a digital code, apart from all the savings in intermediaries that we said above, is linked to a personal account that cannot be resold or lent. Every second-hand product that Sony was unable to sell now becomes a new purchase at full price, or is not produced at all. This second-hand market is not exactly marginal, and is now being seen to disappear. GameStop saw a 14% drop in its quarterly revenue last March, and explicitly attributed to the shift towards digital. The analysis firm Circana estimates that spending on new physical games in the United States has fallen to 1.6 billion dollars in the last year, compared to a maximum of 11.5 billion in 2009. In other words, we have had an almost uninterrupted decline for seventeen years. It’s the market, friend. Sony has taken the most aggressive step, but the direction had already been set from different parts of the sector for some time. A week before Sony’s announcement, Rockstar confirmed that The physical edition of ‘GTA VI’ will not have a disc version. Both Xbox and Playstation have sold versions of their latest consoles without a disc reader. It is an inescapable trend, which began on PC and in stores that have ended up becoming massive options, such as Steam, and which reveals that a corporation will always prefer, rather than a one-time sale, that we are subscribed (literally or figuratively) to a constant purchase, to a service that never ends. Therefore, saying that the player has chosen digital for convenience is, at the very least, a liquid truth. As he told newsletter ‘Friday in Kiribati’we must not get carried away by that discourse: we have not chosen the preeminence of the digital, it has been imposed on us: “it seems that during the last decade no one has designed consoles without a reader, exclusive discounts for digital versions, subscription catalogs, stores integrated (and hyperpresent) in the designs of the systems, games that, despite having the disc, need to connect to the internet (…) nor have they invested obscene amounts of money in convincing us that getting up from the couch to change a disc was a thing. of the past.” Image | Photo of Alexey Savchenko in Unsplash

The new WhatsApp usernames have a reason for being. Advertising, specifically

by

WhatsApp launched a couple of days ago usernamesone of the most important innovations when it comes to contacting people. Until now, talking to someone on WhatsApp was synonymous with having their phone number, but not now. Now just know (or guess, we’ll come back to this later) your username. To pave the way, WhatsApp now allows reserve your usernamethat @ that you have been using for so long on other social networks. And what can happen? That it is not available because someone has claimed it (shout out to the beast that @josedextro has reserved). That’s when WhatsApp puts a solution on the table: if you already use that user on Instagram, You can link your WhatsApp account with said social network and try to claim it. Basically, reading is different. Because, in essence, this is still a mechanism to promote the unification of accounts and have more data to show targeted advertising in an app that, by design, does not allow that option. Your @ is more than a name Last year, precisely around this time, WhatsApp announced the arrival of advertising to the application. The proposal had three branches: Promoted channels. Paid subscriptions for channels. Advertising in the States. WhatsApp confirmed that it was not going to touch the chats screen or the chats themselves, but that the ads would be limited to the “News” tab. According to the platform, 1.5 billion people access the content of that section every day. The question, however, is obvious: how can Meta, the world’s largest targeted advertising platform along with Google, show personalized ads in an app whose content is encrypted? If our user is not available, but we use it on Instagram, WhatsApp allows us to unify accounts to be able to claim it | Image: Xataka Last year, Nikila Srinivasan, VP of Business Messaging at Meta, explained that would use data that they do have access to, such as the country, city, device language, channels we follow and interactions with ads in the “News” tab. But he also explained something else, and that is that if a person decides, voluntarily, link your WhatsApp account with the Meta account center (Instagram, Facebook and Threads), information could be cross-referenced to target ads. Coincidentally, now, practically a year after this announcement, WhatsApp launches the ability to have a username and be able to claim it if you already use it on Instagram. Platform that, by the way, disabled end-to-end encryption in private messages just a few weeks ago. By linking the accounts through the Meta account center, and always on paper, Zuckerberg’s firm would have the ability to link your activity on Instagram, Threads and Facebook with WhatsApp. That would allow, in theory, Advertising could be directed to the user while maintaining end-to-end encryption how popular it made the app in its day. Based on creating a system that allows us to talk to other people without sharing the phone number, WhatsApp has devised a mechanism to unify accounts and expand the reach of advertisements. It is not mandatory, far from it, but the temptation to have the same @ in all apps is strong. And dangerous, because anyone could try to guess your username to contact you. What’s more, when you reserve your username, it is activated by default so that anyone who knows it can write to you. This must be changed manually, although privacy concerns maybe you would like to know that you can set a key so that, if someone wants to write to us, they not only need the @, but also a four-digit password that you must give to the contact at the time. By activating the password, we will prevent anyone from writing to us if they guess our username WhatsApp, for its part, fences which has “multiple layers of defense: username keys limit who can contact you, we restrict how many new people any account can contact, and our systems detect and block patterns of abuse.” If you wish, you can access the Meta account center from here and unlink your accounts. Another option is to opt for an app without ads, as encrypted as WhatsApp and less popular like Signal. Curiously, WhatsApp Plus subscription does not include the ability to remove ads. breaking a spear The reservation system has a positive point, and that is to guarantee that public figures or well-known users can have the same @ on WhatsApp. Best of luck to ElRubius trying to book @elrubiusWTF, or to Ibai Llanos trying to get @ibaillanos. There are personalities who may have a genuine interest in making their symbol recognizable and the same as on other social networks. This system allows it. Image | Xataka In Xataka | We have turned WhatsApp into an “emotional pacifier”. And science warns that it is making us more fragile

Of all the VPNs I’ve looked at for this holiday, I’m sticking with this one for one reason: unlimited devices

by

When I go on vacation somewhere, I always carry several devices with me. It’s not because I spend all day with them in my hands, but because several of us travel as a family. As a general rule this involves connecting to unknown WiFi networks (the one at the hotel or the airport, for example), I have a VPN on all my devices and the one chosen is surfshark for one reason: supports unlimited devices. Surfshark Starter Subscription – monthly The price could vary. We earn commission from these links A VPN that you can install on all your devices Surfshark is one of the best vpn what’s on the market and it is with a very affordable price (part of the 2.39 euros per month). Beyond the speed or the servers available, what most characterizes this VPN is that it supports unlimited devices in all its plans, which allows you to have this tool installed on both your PC, mobile phone, tablet or basically wherever you want with the same account. But is it worth paying for a VPN to go on vacation? The truth is that you can put a lot of use to it. If you are going to use an unknown network, it is a way to protect yourself because you will pass all your traffic through an encrypted tunnel and no one will be able to intercept your data. This is ideal if you are going to use a service that has your banking details, for example. Yes, you can use a free VPN, But these are not as safe as they promise to be.. In addition to all of the above, imagine that you travel abroad and want to continue watching the World Cup. If you have a DAZN account in Spainyou can use the VPN to continue watching the content cas if you were at home without any kind of problem. And since you can install the VPN on all your devices, you can watch it wherever you want. As we said above, Surfshark is on sale right now. Normally, this VPN offers three extra months if we choose its two-year plan (the cheapest in the long run). However, this promo now extends in two ways: it is four months instead of three, but also in the one year plan. These would be the prices: two year plan: 2.39 euros per month or a total of 66.92 euros. In exchange, we will have VPN for 28 months. one year plan: 3.09 euros per month or a total of 49.44 euros. In exchange, we will have VPN for 16 months. Of course, you have to keep in mind that this promo It will only be available until next June 28. Some of the links in this article are affiliated and may provide a benefit to Xataka. In case of non-availability, offers may vary. Image | Joel MottSurfshark In Xataka | Why it is dangerous to connect to public Wi-Fi and what you should do to protect yourself In Xataka | Best VPNs: guide with the 17 best services to protect your online privacy

More and more people are going to concerts with AirPods in their ears. The reason is simple: they function as a stopper

by

For some time now, it has not been a completely strange image to see someone at festivals or concerts with AirPods. You’re not listening to Spotify (that would be weird, frankly), but using them as earplugs to muffle the noise. The trend has spread to such an extent that Apple now has an official name and has cataloged the trend with technical documentation. But… do they really work? Since when? On October 28, 2024, along with the first wave of Apple Intelligence, iOS 18.1 arrived. In that updatethe AirPods Pro 2 received three new functions: hearing test, OTC hearing aid mode with FDA authorization and the one that interests us: Active Hearing Protection. Apple had been presenting it for months in keynotesbut finally, with the software came the legitimization of the company that they had been observing the behavior of users at concerts for some time. How it works. Apple’s official documentation Sets three levels of protection depending on which mode is active. Transparency, which lets you hear the stage through the microphones, attenuates between 11 and 15 decibels. Adaptive mode, which mixes Cancellation and Transparency depending on the environment, raises that figure to between 25 and 29 dB. Pure Active Noise Cancellation averages 27 dB according to eardrum measurements from 2023, although the attenuation is not linear: at low frequencies there are notable improvements compared to the first generation; At mid and high frequencies, performance varies with the physical fit of the headphone. No more than 85. And there is an even more specific mode: the algorithm in Adaptive Transparency (an activatable mode within Transparency) detects the 85 dB threshold and compresses everything above it. In a room at 110 dB (usual level at rock concerts or electronic festivals), that means reducing the peaks to around 82-85 dB. The subjective result described by media such as TechRadarwho tested them in a room with 114.7 dB peak, is that the sound is comfortable and with good nuances for bass and percussion. On the AirPods Pro 3, released in September 2025, the dynamic range even improves. Of course, if the volume consistently exceeds 110-115 dB, even with 25-29 dB of attenuation, the user is exposed to hearing fatigue after ten minutes using AirPods Pro 2 in adaptive mode. That is to say: AirPods reduce damage and are a better option than going to the concert without anything. But they are a worse option than a calibrated hi-fi plug. The fashion of the plug at concerts. According to Loop manufacturer datathe main users of hi-fi earplugs at concerts are young people millennials and Gen Z. Videos with tags like “hot girls wear earplugs to raves“, and the earplugs appear in lists of “rave essentials” as a meme. Hearing protection is no longer a thing for older people or sound engineers, and is now a hallmark of festival identity. In fact, it is Loop itself, founded in Belgium in 2016, that has pushed this change. Their Experience models reduce 17 dB with flat attenuation, which means that the tonal signature of the concert is maintained: everything sounds the same but at a lower volume. The comparisons point Because Loop lags behind specialty brands like EarPeace or Alpine in pure attenuation quality, but the difference is negligible to the non-music user. Design, as with Airpods, plays an important role in its success. Of course, the difference is that people already have the Apple device for other purposes. Why Airpods are not earplugs. The most relevant technical difference between a hi-fi earplug and AirPods is not in the number of decibels, but in how the sound reaches the ear. A plug like Loop or Alpine attenuates acoustically: the physical material absorbs sound energy before it reaches the ear canal. AirPods, on the other hand, capture external sound with microphones, process it digitally and reproduce it modified through the headphones’ speakers, so there is a dependence on the battery and the physical fit in the ear, just as Apple itself warns. In Xataka | Gen Z has become so disengaged from addiction that it is holding daytime raves with coffee and sound healing.

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.