signed

In 2016 Colombia signed a historic peace agreement. Then the area dedicated to cocaine cultivation skyrocketed

by

In Colombia the 11-24-2016 It is one of those dates that sneak into history books and that schoolchildren study for generations. Or at least that’s what was expected a decade agowhen (after years of negotiations and a complicated procedure with steps forward and back) the Government and the FARC signed a Peace Agreement which was intended to mark a turning point in the country’s history of drug trafficking and violence. The reality today is that the Colombian coca map may be different from that of 2016, but it has not retreated. Quite the opposite. Taking stock. The second round of the Colombian teams will coincide almost with the tenth anniversary of the agreement signed in 2016 by the FARC-EP and the Government, then headed by Juan Manuel Santos. With that backdrop, this week the British newspaper Financial Times public an extensive analysis in which he examines how the cocaine business, drug trafficking and violence in the country have changed over the last decade. And the result is not exactly good. If it had to be summarized, it could be done like this: more hectares of cultivation, greater yield, more business and less ideology. Change of actors. One of the key ideas that leave bouncing FT is that, far from ending drug trafficking and coca cultivation, the 2016 agreement has only served to change its protagonists. The place that the far-left insurgent organization once occupied FARC It is now distributed to armed groups more motivated by the search for profit. From discourse based on politics we move on to business. Not only that. The logistics chain has become fragmented and specialized, although in the new map they would stand out above all three great actors. One is the National Liberation Army (ELN), left-wing guerrilla organization that expands its influence to Venezuela. Another group is made up of former members of the FARC who are dissatisfied with the 2016 pact and who now act as dissidents. The third protagonist is Gaitanista Armyalso known by its acronym (EGC) or as Clan del Golfo, formed by right-wing paramilitaries. For the director of the Ideas for Peace Foundation (FIP), María Victoria Llorente, the latter is “the largest criminal organization in Colombia.” What exactly happened? That the State has not achieved occupy the place left by the FARC, which has translated into a huge opportunity for other organizations interested in drug trafficking. Toby Muse, reporter and author of ‘Kilo’, summed it up not long ago in an interview with ABC: “The FARC had control of many of the places where coca was planted. When they lowered their weapons they clearly told the Government: ‘Now this territory is yours. A minimum of law must be introduced and the peasants must be protected. That is the peace process. This territory is now yours’. The Government was unable to take control. Other groups did so and it generated a new cycle of violence.” Click on the image to go to the tweet. The figure: 253,000 hectares. Geoff Dyer and Joe Daniels, the reporters who sign the report of FT, have not limited themselves to collecting testimonies from experts and locals. In their chronicle they also slip some figures that help understand how the coca map in Colombia has changed since 2016. Of all, perhaps the most resounding are the UN estimates on the cultivated area: between 2018 and 2023 there would be increased by around 50% until reaching 253,000 hectares. This growth has also been accompanied by another just as solid in the production of pure cocaine hydrochloride. A questionable balance. Just a few days ago, President Gustavo Petro assured that the Executive expects that the area with coca crops this year will be around 253,358 hectares, which, he insisted, represents a reduction compared to 2025. In any case, it is still higher than what was expected. the UN calculated in 2022 and questions the success of the policies promoted a decade ago by the Executive to encourage farmers to abandon coca plantations. In 2017, for example, the Transnational Institute (TNI) informed of how a “crop substitution plan” to, through economic incentives, eliminate 50,000 hectares of coca in just one year. Only part of the ‘photo’. It is not just that the cultivated area has increased. In its 2024 report, the UN also points out a noticeable increase in the yield of cultivated hectares, a phenomenon that coincides with the decision of the Government of dispense with of aerial fumigation with glyphosate as a tool to eradicate coca plantations. The decision was made a decade ago due to its impact on the environment and the health of the population, but the Petro Government has had no choice but to reverse and recover fumigations with the help of drones. More sophisticated. In general the analysis of Financial Times points out that new generations have ‘professionalized’ coca production in Colombia, betting on new varieties of crops, more efficient agricultural practices and more sophisticated processing. Even the laboratories have been improved. The British media reports that, taking advantage of their control of the territory, some groups have even gotten into other businesses, such as illegal gold mining. Beyond Colombia. That coca production increases by Colombian forests It has effects beyond the country or even South America. In your ‘World Drug Report 2025’the United Nations recalled that in 2023 the production, seizures and consumption of white powder had reached “new highs”, confirming itself as “the fastest growing illicit drug.” According to their calculations, production shot up almost 34% between 2022 and 2023 and consumption went from 17 million users in 2013 to nearly 25 million in 2023. hunted caches before reaching its destination, but so does production, something that has even been felt in the quote of the bales. The reflection in Europe. In the global chain they are on one side the big producers (Colombia, Peru and Bolivia) and on the other the main consumer markets. In the latter, important changes can also be seen, something that it is clear in … Read more

The US has signed peace with Iran in Versailles. The last time someone did it was the prologue to an unprecedented disaster

by

There is a historical irony that is difficult to overcome: the Treaty of Versailles It was signed in the same room (the Hall of Mirrors) where, in 1871, the German Empire was proclaimed after the French defeat. In 1919, France chose that same place on purpose to reverse the humiliation and force Germany to sign its defeat in the same scenario of its triumph. That peace was intended close a war…and twenty years later, Europe was entering an even worse situation. Peace in the same place, again. donald trump has signed an agreement with Iran in a place steeped in history: the Palace of Versailles. The image is powerful because it inevitably refers to the last great peace treaty sealed there, the one from 1919when Europe believed it was healing the wound of the First World War. That peace, however, was an imperfect peace: humiliated Germany, left open economic and political wounds, and fueled resentment that, two decades later, facilitated the rise of Adolf Hitlerthe collapse of the European order and the Second World War. The symbolism today is disturbing because Trump presents this pact as a historic victory, but many see in it the same pattern: a hasty truce, ambiguous concessions and structural problems that remain intact. From surrender to something else. Just a few weeks ago Trump demanded “unconditional surrender” of Iran. He signed memorandum This week it’s practically the opposite. Washington has agreed to release billions in frozen assets, relax sanctions, allow Iranian oil exports and open the door to a reconstruction fund. of 300 billion dollars funded by regional partners. In return, Tehran promises to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, contain its regional allies and continue talking about its nuclear program. The shift is enormous: from maximalist rhetoric to a negotiation that many in Washington consider a strategic transfer. The weapon that defeated Washington. The most striking thing is that Iran did not win this negotiation on the battlefield, but in the global economy. The closure of Hormuz (through which around 20% of the world’s oil passes) unleashed a cimmediate energy crisis. The threat of a global economic collapse was the factor that, according to Trump himselfpushed him to close a quick deal. I feared a spiral similar to that of Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. Therein lies the great Iranian victory: it has shown that it does not need to militarily defeat the United States to impose conditions; just touch the circulatory system of the world economy. What was not resolved. There is no doubt, the central problem is still alive. The agreement barely touches the Iranian ballistic arsenal, leaves the question of its regional militias in the air and only establishes vague mechanisms to manage its enriched uranium. Trump even has publicly accepted for Iran to keep part of its missiles, something that until recently was a red line. The architecture of the pact is dangerously similar to that of the 2015 nuclear deal which he himself demolished during his first term. The difference is that now he signs it with less pressure and with an Iran that has proven its capacity for economic coercion. A peace that strengthens the adversary. Instead of weakening the regime, the war seems to have consolidated it. The apparatus of the Guardians of the Revolution still intact At its political core, the new leadership presents itself as surviving a direct clash with Washington and the flow of money can reinforce its internal stability. In practice, Trump has saved a regime he claimed he wanted to overthrow. That’s one of the most uncomfortable parallels. with 1919: Sometimes treaties do not close conflicts, they simply reorganize forces and give the actors time to recover. The poison of the 1919 Treaty. When the Treaty of Versailles was signed after the First World War, the winning powers imposed gigantic economic reparations on Germany, the loss of key territories, severe military limitations and, above all, the famous “guilt clause”, which forced Berlin to accept responsibility morale of the entire war. On paper it was a punishment. In practice it was a political bomb watchmaking. German society felt that peace not as closure, but as a historical humiliation that fueled a narrative of national betrayal and desire for revenge. From humiliation to Nazism. That resentment found perfect fuel in the hyperinflation of the 1920s, massive unemployment and the economic collapse after the crash of 1929. It was in that broth that Hitler built his rise: promising to break up Versailles, restore German greatness, and return lost sovereignty. And he did it. He reoccupied the Rhineland, rearmed the country, absorbed Austria, and dismantled the European order as Western democracies tried to buy time with concessions. The peace of 1919 did not prevent the following war; He incubated her slowly. and when broke out in 1939was much more devastating than the first. The lesson of Versailles. The great historical teaching of the Treaty of Versailles It was not that peace failed immediately, but that a very bad peace can incubate a worse war. In 1919 it was believed that the European chaos had been contained and what was done was to postpone it while growing up in silence. Today the risk is not a literal repetition, but the logic is recognizable: United States economic pressure easesIran retains tools of coercion and its nuclear capacity remains not completely neutralized. If Tehran concludes that being on the brink of the bomb is not enough to deter and that the real shield is to become another North Korea, this agreement could end up being remembered not as the end of a war, but as the prologue to a much larger crisis. Image | US NAVY, William Orpen In Xataka | The US entered Iran with the intention of disarming it and changing the regime: it is going to leave by strengthening its position and paying it money In Xataka | Iran always thought it would need a nuclear bomb to defend itself against the US: it has … Read more

Stellantis and Dongfeng have just signed an agreement to produce Jeeps and Peugeots in China, and then bring them from China

by

Stellantis and Dongfeng have signed an agreement of production valued at more than 8 billion yuan (approximately 1 billion euros) to manufacture four new vehicles in China under the Jeep and Peugeot brands. This initiative will be channeled through Dongfeng Peugeot Citroën Automobile (DPCA), the joint venture that both companies have had for more than three decades. Penetrating China. This agreement is Stellantis’ clearest commitment to adapt to the new reality of the sector. And instead of competing head-on with Chinese manufacturers, the group chooses to rely on its technology and production capacity. The Financial Times point that Chinese buyers have turned their backs on foreign brands, whose market share fell to approximately 30% last year, compared to 64% in 2020. In such an environment, growing alone is almost impossible, so Stellantis has used the classic “if you can’t beat the enemy, join him.” A strategic agreement. The four vehicles will be new energy vehicles (NEV), a category that includes pure electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and models with a combustion engine acting as a battery generator. The two Peugeots will be based on the design language that the brand presented at this year’s Beijing Motor Show with the Concept 6 and Concept 8, according to account the CnEVPost media. The two Jeeps will have an off-road profile. According to share According to the Financial Times, production will be destined for both the Chinese market and export, in the latter case for destinations such as Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. The two companies have also agreed to explore broader cooperation outside China. In addition, as the media reports, Stellantis is simultaneously studying transferring capacity from its Rennes plant, in France, to Dongfeng. Jeep’s return to China. The agreement represents the return of the brand’s local production in the country. Jeep abandoned manufacturing there in 2022, when the joint venture was dissolved that Fiat Chrysler (precursor of Stellantis) maintained with GAC. Since then, Stellantis had been importing the vehicles, a formula that was already much less competitive due to price. Between the lines. Dongfeng assumes most of the disbursement, while Stellantis contributes around 130 million euros. There are already clues as to who has the productive and technological capacity, and who provides the brand value. The agreement also benefits from the industrial policies of Hubei province and the city of Wuhan (where the joint venture has its plant), something that has generated criticism in Europe and the United States by interpreting that Western manufacturers are taking advantage of Chinese state subsidies. For Dongfeng, the pact comes at a delicate time. And the manufacturer has fallen behind other large companies such as BYD or Leapmotor, and now the state firm needs both income and international projection. Dongfeng President Qing Yang account that the agreement will be “beneficial for both parties.” Movements. Stellantis has been accelerating its alliances with Chinese partners for weeks. Only last week it announced that it was deepening its collaboration with Leapmotor, in which it has 21% of the capital. The brand will hand over the Villaverde plant, in Madrid, and will expand lines in Zaragoza. That makes Stellantis the first major Western manufacturer to offer European production capacity to a Chinese brand, according to stand out from the Wall Street Journal. Antonio Filosa, CEO of Stellantis, who foresees present its new long-term strategy on May 21has repeated on several occasions that alliances will be a central pillar of the group’s future, a group that we remember closed 2025 with net losses of 22.3 billion euros. And now what. The big question is whether the models leaving Wuhan will have enough Jeep and Peugeot DNA to appeal to the global buyer, or whether they will in practice be Chinese vehicles with a European logo. With Dongfeng taking on most of the funding and technology development, the answer points more towards the latter. We will have to wait to find out how the play ends up turning out. In Xataka | Google gives Android Auto its biggest update yet: new interface, YouTube, Maps redesign, and lots of AI

Google and Apple have been wanting to kill SMS for years. So they have signed peace between their messaging apps

by

Apple and Google have been betting on their own protocols for years RCS messaging. Relevant solutions in territories like the United States, but that do not fully penetrate the rest of the world. Despite this, both companies have closed an important agreement, so that when chatting from an Android to an iPhone the communication is encrypted. The novelty. Google has announced an agreement with Apple to implement end-to-end encryption for RCSensuring that chats between Android and iOS are secure by default. Although both systems had encrypted device-to-device communication (Android to Android and iPhone to iPhone), this security measure did not apply when we communicated with a different operating system. Why is it important. From now on, if you are looking for a safe way to communicate without going through applications like WhatsApp or Telegram, use the native Messages app (have an iPhone or have an Android) is an excellent option. There is no need to download anything, files can be shared, and the information does not pass through the hands of anyone other than Apple or Google. It is not the perfect solution for those looking for absolute anonymity, but it is a great plan to do without giants like Meta. What is RCS?. RCS stands for “Rich Communication Service”. It is a protocol that came to succeed SMS, and allows communication to be carried out in an encrypted and fast way. Being a protocol and not an app, developers need to create them to use RCS. In the case of Google it is the Messages app and, on iOS, too. When you send a message via RCS, it goes through our operator’s server, and from there to a server certified by the GSMA. It allows you to send images and videos of up to 10 MB and, most importantly, it does not require an internet connection to work. SMS vibes. Why it fails. Apple and Google’s efforts with RCS have to do with a phenomenon that has been happening for years in the US: the overwhelming success of the iPhone and iMessage. In the United States, iMessage is used more than WhatsAppsomething unthinkable in our country. Spain is the country of absolute dominance of WhatsApp, with Apple representing just over 10% of the market share and making it impossible for iMessage to be a rival for the Meta app. Why will he still be alive?. Google, despite controlling 70% of the mobile market with Android, needs a direct way for its users to communicate. And that way is RCS. Apple was forced to adopt it due to European pressure and, although it may not be a massive protocol, it is a key alternative to rival services. Be that as it may, good news for those who want alternatives to WhatsApp or Telegram when communicating from one mobile phone to another without the need for a network connection. In Xataka | Meta will pay $1.4 billion to Texas for violating the privacy of its users. Used facial recognition without permission

Meta has signed an agreement to search for it in space

by

Back in 1941, Isaac Asimov already played with an idea that for decades sounded more like literature than infrastructure: capture solar energy in space and send her back to Earth. It was not a minor occurrence. Basically, it posed a question that today no longer belongs only to science fiction: what do we do when the energy available down here is not enough to sustain what we want to build. More than eighty years later, that question has found a new protagonist: artificial intelligence. What we have seen in recent years is a race to build AI infrastructure at enormous speed. More models, more servers, more data centers and, as a direct consequence, more need for stable electricity. Meta places the problem there: current clean sources help, but have obvious limitations when looking for continuous supply. Solar doesn’t produce at night, the wind doesn’t always blow, and the grid needs storage to turn that intermittent energy into a more reliable basis for its operations. The energy that AI is pushing beyond Earth The Meta movement arrives in the form of two agreements who attack the problem from different sides. The first is with Overview Energy, a startup with which Meta has reserved until 1 GW capacity of orbital solar power to support the company’s data center operations. The second is with Noon Energy, with whom Meta has reserved up to 1 GW/100 GWh of very long duration storage capacity. The idea is not to replace one technology with another, but to combine generation and storage to get closer to a more continuous supply. Overview Energy’s proposal is based on a premise that is simple to tell, although difficult to execute. Its satellites would be in geostationary orbit above the Earth’s equator, where sunlight is constant. From there they would capture energy and send it to existing solar installations on Earth as low-intensity near-infrared light. According to Meta, these plants would convert the beam into electricity and inject it into the grid just as they do today with direct sunlight, also during the hours in which they now remain inactive. Capture of a video about the project shared by Meta It’s a good idea to put things in perspective. The company itself places this technology in an early phase: Overview plans a orbital demonstration in 2028when your system should try to send power wirelessly from space to a solar plant on Earth for the first time. If successful, commercial delivery to the US grid could begin, at the earliest, in 2030. In between, the most difficult part remains: proving that the system works, that it scales, and that it can do so in an economic sense. Noon Energy Energy Storage System The second alliance looks at a less striking, but equally important problem: what happens when clean energy has already been generated and needs to be conserved for longer. Noon Energy works with reversible solid oxide fuel cells and carbon-based storage to offer more than 100 hours of storage, well above what Meta says lithium-ion batteries can offer today. These two alliances fit into a much broader energy strategy. Meta assures that it has already contracted more than 30 GW of clean and renewable energyand places these agreements alongside its next-generation geothermal projects with Sage Geosystems and XGS Energy, in addition to 7.7 GW of nuclear energy linked to Vistra, TerraPower, Oklo and Constellation Energy. What remains is a fairly clear snapshot of the moment: AI is not only pushing technology companies to buy more chips, it is also forcing them to look for electricity in increasingly unconventional places. Images | Xataka with Grok In Xataka | Kimi Code is eight times cheaper than Claude Code and does 75% of your work. The question is whether it is enough

OpenAI has signed countless billion-dollar agreements with other companies. We are discovering that they are made of paper

by

OpenAI has announced that will abandon development of Soraits AI video generator, just six months after the launch of its standalone app. Disney, which had announced a $1 billion investment in OpenAI in exchange for licensing its characters for Sora, has confirmed that the deal will not go ahead. The money never changed handsand joins others in recent weeks that send a worrying message. One that calls into question the real strength of the most valued company in the AI ​​sector. Paper agreements. In recent months, OpenAi has been the protagonist of a frenetic string of announcements that have shaken the stock markets and sent prices skyrocketing. Analysts like Ed Zitron have documented in detail how these agreements are for now more smoke than anything else: all of them were “letters of intent”, conditional commitments that now seem increasingly difficult to come true. There are examples everywhere. The NVIDIA case: the one hundred billion that did not exist. In September 2025 NVIDIA announced a “strategic partnership” with OpenAI to invest “up to 100 billion dollars” and build 10 GW of data centers. Four months later, the company led by Jensen Huang considerably reduced that investment to 30 billion dollars. Jensen Huang recently stated that this will “probably” be the last round he will enter into OpenAI and clarified that the statement made it clear that this was a “letter of intent”, not a contract. Months later in NVIDIA’s quarterly results, the agreement is described as “an opportunity to invest in OpenAI.” Not a single dollar has been sent to him, and it is not certain that he will. The AMD case: 34% rise in the stock market. In October, another mega-deal. amd announced a “definitive” agreement with openAI to deploy 6 GW of data centers. The company indicated that would potentially generate “tens of billions in revenue,” and AMD shares rose 34% in one day. Four months later, in quarterly results from the company, zero mentions of OpenIA. IN November 2025, in AMD’s 10-Q filing, AMD’s outstanding obligations on contracts with a duration greater than one year were 279 million dollars. There were practically no mentions of OpenAI. Many promises, no reality. The Broadcom case: a confusing order. Broadcom too was going to deploy 10 GW of “AI accelerators designed by OpenAI” at the end of 2029, but at the moment there is still no evidence that chip sales have occurred and there are no clues in OpenAI’s latest quarterly results, which do not mention this agreement anywhere or its impact. Broadcom CEO he did tell investors that they expected to deploy 1 GW of computing in the form of XPUs in 2027, but did not give details of how they planned to reach 10 GW in 2029. And also revealed that “we do not expect much in 2026” from the contract with OpenAI, because the return will focus on 2027, 2028 and 2029. The Disney case: a very bad sign. The agreement with Disney announced in Decemberincluded the company taking a $1 billion stake and will license more than 200 characters from Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars for use on Sora. It was the type of agreement that validates a company before the general public, especially since Disney does not sign agreements with just anyone. However, the agreement was entirely built on stock warrants, not cash, they point out in Deadline. By abandoning Sora, Disney has withdrawn without consequences and without having transferred a dollar. Another paper agreement. The SKHynix case: where are we going to get so much memory from?. SK Hynix and Samsung intended to provide 900,000 RAM wafers per month for OpenAI’s Stargate project, but the result of these intentions has been null. That agreement would have consumed 40% of world production of DRAM in the midst of the crisis of this type of components. The mysterious Norwegian data center case. OpenAI promised in July 2025 that would boost construction of an AI data center belonging to the Stargate project but which would be in Norway. It was then expected that this center would have 100,000 NVIDIA chips by the end of 2026, and that it would expand “significantly” from that figure. There has been no news of this development since then. Nobody asks questions. Zitron complained in your reflection how financial analysts seemed not to ask the necessary questions when faced with these announcements. He explains that OpenAI had committed about $300 billion in different agreements to create new data centers, but its real income is around $4.5 billion a year and it is expected that it will have losses of about $14 billion in 2026. Despite everything, Zitron criticizes, the stream of advertisements continues to work because it generates increases in the stock market and positive headlines. The difference between contracts and letters of intent was buried in the fine print of the advertisements that almost no one reads. And the examples continue. In fact, the advertisements do not stop coming despite everything and everyone. OpenAI announced in February an investment of 110 billion dollars by SoftBank (30 billion), NVIDIA (30 billion) and Amazon (50 billion). SoftBank itself is “testing its lending limits” with that bet, which we will see if he can complete. Amazon’s 50 billion are divided in two phases: a first of 15,000 million that should be executed on March 31, and another of 35,000 million dollars whose deadlines depend on several events. Too many agreements that must demonstrate something critical: that they are not made of paper. In Xataka | Problems are multiplying for OpenAI in the race for AI. Your solution: go from 4,500 to 8,000 workers

Europe has signed the first agreement to protect dogs and cats. Breeders won’t like it

by

The Animal Welfare Law It came into force in Spain two years ago. Among its measures, the law prohibits individuals from breeding and selling pets, allowing only registered breeders. Now, it is the European Union that wants to put an end to abusive breeding. what has happened. On November 25, the Council and the European Parliament reached an agreement provisional agreement which establishes a series of stricter rules for the dog and cat trade. It will affect both breeders, pet stores and shelters. The agreement still has to be endorsed, but a date has already been set for the standards to be met: 2028. Why it is important. It is the first agreement on animal welfare at community level. Until now, the only European regulation that affected pet animals was the one that regulated movements between member countries, but the fact that the fight against abusive breeding is being prioritized is further proof that animal welfare is at the center of public debate. Starting point. It is estimated that the cat and dog purchasing market moves 1,300 million euros a year and 60% of purchases are made online. In Spain, the Animal Welfare Law expressly prohibits direct sales over the internet and requires breeders who advertise in magazines or other media to include their registration number, but in many other EU countries there is no regulation in this regard. animal welfare. Establishments must meet a series of requirements to provide well-being to the animals they house and which will be aimed at covering the diet, physical environment, health, behavior and mental state of the animals. Some of these requirements are: The environment will have good quality, which means that it is comfortable, that they have enough space and a good temperature. The animals will be safe, clean and healthy. Disease or injury prevention measures must be applied. It is prohibited to have dogs or cats in spaces (cages, showcases…), except for transport. It is prohibited to keep dogs tied for long periods. Dogs and cats must have access to the outdoors to exercise and socialize. They must receive water and food in sufficient quantity and quality. Establishments must have sufficient competence to care for dogs and cats, including an understanding of their biological behavior and ethological needs. At least one caregiver per establishment will have to receive official training in animal care. They must ensure veterinary visits at least once a year and record the results. When selling or adopting an animal, the recipient must be made aware of responsible ownership. Breeders. The regulations focus especially on the breeding and reproduction of animals, with a series of requirements that aim to end harmful practices such as mutilations or inbreeding. They are the following: Age limits will be established for the dogs and cats used for breeding, as well as a frequency between litters. Consanguinity will be prohibited, that is, breeding between parents, descendants, siblings or grandparents will not be permitted. If a female dog or cat has undergone two cesarean sections, she should be removed from breeding to protect her health. The creation of hybrids through crossing with wild species, for example dogs and wolves, is prohibited. Mutilations such as cutting ears, tails or removing nails cannot be carried out. It cannot be used to breed dogs or cats with extreme traits. For example, very short noses or “flat faces” typical of breeds such as the French bulldog or the pug. Mandatory identification. All dogs and cats sold or given up for adoption must be microchipped and registered in the national database. Starting in 2028, breeders and shelters will be obligated, but within ten years it will be mandatory for all dog or cat guardians. In Spain, microchipping is already mandatory for both species. The novelty introduced by this regulation is that the databases will be interoperable at the European level. Who it doesn’t affect. There are exceptions and againthe regulations will not affect hunting dogs, guard dogs or cats that live freely in rural areas. The FAADA Foundation regrets this decision and states that “it will leave some 18 million cats and 2 million dogs in the EU without adequate protection.” There is also an exception regarding the prohibition of consanguinity. It will be allowed when it is to “preserve local breeds with a limited genetic pool.” Small establishments will also not have to comply with the rules except for the identification of animals with a microchip. To be considered a small establishment, they must meet these requirements: Breeders who have a maximum of three dogs or cats and produce a maximum of two litters per year. Pet stores that have a maximum of three dogs or six cats. Animal shelters that have a maximum of ten dogs or twenty cats. Images | Pexels In Xataka | Yes, the neighbors on the tenth floor can have chickens at home even if they don’t want to. The Animal Welfare Law says so

Oracle signed a 300 billion agreement with OpenAI. Two months later it has lost 315,000 million in the stock market

by

Since Oracle announced its $300 billion deal with OpenAI On September 10, its shares have lost $315 billion in market capitalization, as they have stated since Financial Times. The technology company He has bet everything on a single card: Become the premier infrastructure provider for the world’s most valuable AI lab. Investors are not convinced. The most expensive bet in its history. Oracle has tied its future to OpenAI in an unprecedented way in the technology industry. According to estimates At Jefferies, 58% of its future order book comes from a single customer: OpenAI. To put it in perspective, Microsoft has just 39% concentration with its largest customer, and Amazon 16%. Oracle has gotten into a mess and its business diversification has become a critical dependency on OpenAI. The plan is ambitious but risky. Oracle’s strategy is to reach $166 billion in cloud computing revenue by 2030, according to counted the company last month. To achieve this, its investment budget in the current fiscal year ending in May amounts to $35 billion. The analysts wait that this annual expenditure will stabilize around 80,000 million in 2029. But here’s the problem: Starting in 2027, most of that revenue would come from OpenAI, according to the calculations from RBC Capital Markets. That is, Oracle is not just building massive infrastructure, it is building massive infrastructure for a single tenant that has yet to prove its long-term commercial viability. The numbers don’t add up yet. Oracle’s net debt already stands at 2.5 times its ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), more than double what it was in 2021, and is expected to almost double again by 2030. Its free cash flow is also expected to remain negative for five consecutive years, according to the forecasts collected by Bloomberg. The company is financing with debt a gigantic server farm with the hope that OpenAI will generate enough revenue to justify the investment. Meanwhile, as has shared Financial Times, investors are so restless that the cost of insuring against a potential Oracle default is at a three-year high. The contagion effect of OpenAI. Oracle is not the only company that has suffered after announcing agreements with OpenAI. Broadcom and Amazon too have seen their shares fallwhile NVIDIA has barely moved since its investment agreement in September. A few months ago, any type of association with OpenAI caused prices to rise, considering himself the King Midas of AI. The most notable case was AMD’s in Octoberwhen its shares rose 24% after announcing a chip deal that included company warrants. That halo effect seems to have completely faded. Between the lines. The initial theory was that OpenAI was in a frantic race to catch up. general artificial intelligence (AGI) and that Oracle was the only company capable of scaling the necessary computing capacity at the required speed. Oracle promised the lowest upfront costs and the fastest path to revenue generation because it acted as a data center tenant, not an owner. Now investors are sending the signal that partnering with OpenAI is no longer a guarantee of success. The alternative reality is less rosy: Oracle doesn’t have as much operating profit as its competitors to burn on R&D, so it’s betting everything to keep its only big customer in exchange for a promissory note. Amazon, Microsoft and Meta can afford to spend between 70,000 and 130,000 million a year in infrastructure. Oracle is juggling financials to keep pace. And now what. Oracle has until mid-2026 to prove that your Abilene data center in Texas, with capacity for more than 400,000 GPUs and 1.4 gigawatts of power, can generate the promised returns. Meanwhile, the market has spoken and is awaiting evidence that this partnership will bear the promised fruits. Cover image | Oracle and OpenAI In Xataka | As if there weren’t enough AI companies, Jeff Bezos has just returned from the shadows to build another one, according to the NYT

NVIDIA, Microsoft and Anthropic have signed a new multi-million dollar agreement

by

Microsoft, NVIDIA and Anthropic have announced recently a series of strategic alliances that redistribute the map of power in the generative AI race. Anthropic will deploy its Claude models in Azure, Microsoft’s cloud, while committing to purchase $30 billion in computing capacity and contract additional capacity of up to one gigawatt. For their part, NVIDIA and Microsoft will invest up to 10,000 and 5,000 million dollars respectively in the startup. The triangular pact, in figures. Anthropic will have access for the first time to Microsoft Foundry, where its most advanced models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Opus 4.1 and Claude Haiku 4.5) will be available to Azure enterprise customers. With this, Claude becomes the only advanced model present in the three main cloud services in the world. Additionally, Microsoft promise maintain the integration of Claude into its Copilot family, including GitHub Copilot, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and Copilot Studio. In parallel, NVIDIA and Anthropic establish their first collaboration of such caliber. To do this, they will work together in design and engineering to optimize the Claude models on future NVIDIA architectures, starting with systems Grace Blackwell and Vera Rubin. Microsoft looks for alternatives to OpenAI. This move comes just weeks after OpenAI will complete its restructuring towards a for-profit model and will renew its agreement with Microsoft. Although Microsoft maintains a 27% stake in OpenAI valued at about $135 billion, the new terms of the deal have relaxed some key elements of its exclusivity. And OpenAI can now collaborate with third parties and release open source models, while Microsoft no longer has the right to try to be its sole computing provider. According to The Vergethese changes in the relationship with OpenAI have precisely allowed Microsoft to close this pact with Anthropic. In fact, Microsoft had already been betting on Claude in some of its services, for example, in Visual Code, prioritizing Claude over GPT-5 in your model selector. It also recently added Claude Sonnet 4 and Claude Opus 4.1 to Microsoft 365 Copilot. Circular financing: money that comes back. As is customary in these AI macro-agreements, a clear circular financing dynamic. Microsoft and NVIDIA pump capital into Anthropic, which in turn commits to spending tens of billions on infrastructure provided by those same companies. In essence, some of the money invested returns as revenue from cloud computing services and specialized hardware. It is not a new phenomenon: in fact, Anthropic already has similar agreements with Amazon, which has invested 8 billion dollars and continues to be its main infrastructure provider, and with Google, which in recent weeks announced a pact to provide up to one million TPUs to the startup. These types of cross-investments have become the norm in the generative AI ecosystem, creating almost symbiotic relationships between companies to meet their computing and infrastructure needs. one gigawatt. Building a data center with that capacity could cost around $50 billion, according to industry estimateswith some 35 billion dedicated exclusively to AI chips. Although the figure pales compared to OpenAI’s Stargate project, which aspires to 500,000 million dollars In investing, Anthropic’s approach seems more pragmatic and execution-focused. The company led by Dario Amodei has gained ground in the business market with less media noise but with solid results. And its annualized revenue rate now reaches $7 billion, although like the rest of the AI ​​startups it continues to spend much more than it earns. Diversification. What is really relevant about this agreement is that it confirms a trend: that large technology companies are no longer betting everything on a single card in AI. Microsoft, which has invested billions in OpenAI since 2019 and made it the flagship of its AI strategy, is now expanding its portfolio with Anthropic. For its part, Anthropic demonstrates its ability to maintain multiple alliances without compromising its independence. It is the sensible option and the one that minimizes risks. Cover image | Microsoft In Xataka | Tim Cook’s end at Apple is approaching

Xania Monet is one of the most popular artists of the moment. It is also an AI that has just signed a million-dollar contract

by

It seemed like an area of ​​culture that remained for the moment in the background before the million-dollar demands of Hollywood production companies and publishing giants, but hostilities are also intensifying in the field of pop music: through AIthere are composers who create singers that do not exist, who have a considerable following on streaming platforms and who get them million-dollar contracts. And meanwhile, distributors and producers defend their corralito with demands for the tools that generate these new phenomena. The figures are beginning to be in the millions, so this has only just begun. The Xania Monet case. The poet Telisha Jones, 31, tried a new method in the summer of 2025 to capture her verses: she introduced her poems into Sunothe artificial intelligence platform capable of converting text into complete songs. The tool not only put music to their words, but gave them a powerful voice, with the timbre of a professional R&B singer. Jones’ lyrics were brought to life through an algorithm trained on millions of previous recordings. This is how Xania Monet was borna digital avatar with a presence on social networks and, shortly after, a catalog that soon circulated on social media platforms. streaming. The climb. In just two months, Xania Monet accumulated figures that many human artists take years to achieve. Your theme’How Was I Supposed to Know‘ rose to first place in the Billboard R&B Digital Sales Chart. This same month, the song reached number 30 on the Adult R&B Airplay: that is, real radio stations are playing it. Another song, ‘Let Go, Let God‘, more in the thematic parameters of gospel, reached number 21 on Hot Gospel Songs. All of this points to a reach that is not exactly small: 17 million total views in the United States in two months. It reached a peak of more than 5 million streams in just seven days. On Spotify, the number of monthly listeners is around 530,000, while on social networks, the avatar accumulates close to 770,000 followers between Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. The millionaire contract. From there, success (and money). According to Billboardseveral record labels initially requested meetings with Jones, but she refused to activate her camera and sing for the executives, for obvious reasons. But the offers have ended up arriving, one of them from 3 million dollars. Some labels linked to major record companies such as Universal, Sony or Warner withdrew from the bid for Monet because their respective companies have lawsuits against Suno for copyright infringement. The winner was Hallwood Media, an independent company owned by a former president of the legendary Geffen Records. It is not his first signing of these characteristics: weeks ago he had signed imoliveranother music creator by using Suno. The doubts. The case raises multiple legal and ethical questions: who is really the author of a song whose lyrics are written by a human but whose music, voice and arrangements are generated by a machine? Jones claims that she owns all songwriting and production rights, based on Suno’s terms of service. However, the United States Copyright Office has established that will not grant protection to works whose “expressive elements are determined by a machine”making it unclear who is going to pocket the $50,000 generated from rights to date. But there is also the eternal issue of generative AIs: Xania Monet’s voice bears notable similarities to established singers, such as Beyoncé. If their voice was generated by training the model with protected recordings, to what extent would the original artists not have to be compensated? That’s without going into the primary ethical question, with almost existential overtones: the implications of an artist without a body and without years of practice behind her competing with flesh-and-blood musicians for space on the lists. The imoliver case. He was ahead of Xania Monet and behind him is Oliver McCann, who He defines himself as a “musical designer”since he also lacks traditional musical training. His work with Suno consists of introducing textual indications into the platform describing atmospheres, emotions or genres and polishing it. In July 2025 he was signed by Hallwood Media, which has replicated that same strategy with Monet: in August a song was uploaded to streaming, and a series of songs followed with marketing support, to finally release a complete album. The legal controversy. In June 2024, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) launched what would become one of the most significant legal battles of the music industry in recent times. On behalf of Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, he presented simultaneous lawsuits against Suno and Udiothe two dominant platforms in music generation by artificial intelligence. They were accused of massive and systematic copyright infringement: both companies had fed their AI models millions of protected songs without obtaining licenses or permissions. In August, Suno acknowledged that this was indeed the case, and that this practice was perfectly legal under the doctrine of “fair use”. According to her, the songs generated are new and legal. So the companies increased their attack, adding to their lawsuit an accusation that they had obtained their songs through Youtube piracy and ripping: “the largest theft of intellectual property in human history.” To resolve this conflict (which has led companies like Anthropic to pay 1.5 billion dollars to resolve a lawsuit of the same type, but in the literary field) we must answer a fundamental question, and one that will determine the future of people like Monet and imoliver: who is the legal owner of the songs generated by these platforms? In Xataka | We have created these three songs using Suno AI v3. It’s the most spectacular thing we’ve seen in a long time.

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.