Wall

Apple is preparing glasses to respond to Meta’s Ray-Ban. The problem is a wall called ‘privacy’

by

John Ternus is the new CEO of Apple and, although he will officially take office next September 1 coinciding with the presentation of the iPhone 18 Procomes to office with a task. On the one hand, the highly rumored foldable iPhone that we should see next to the iPhone 18 Pro and that it would have a very similar format to what was seen in the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8. On the other hand, the new Apple glasses. We are not referring to a new version of the VisionProbut rather one more product to carry on a daily basis with which they will compete, directly, against the Ray-Ban by Meta. However, there is a major challenge with this product: privacy. Because Meta’s glasses have been sailing seas of controversies with privacyuser recordings that They are not so private either the use that is made of this type of device, and if a company does not want to have anything to do with controversies, and even less related to privacy, that is Apple. All of this is forcing them to think very hard. What strategy do you want to follow with these glasses? that can pay for the losses of another team: the AI ​​team. Let’s go with the story because it’s pretty cool. Apple glasses and the privacy problem A few months ago, our colleagues at Applesfera already said that reputable sources from both the sector in general and Apple in particular they pointed to a delay in the apple glasses. Mark Gurman, in Bloombergassures that the device was planned for sometime in 2026, but in the end it will end up arriving at the end of 2027 with a presentation at WWDC 2027. That extra time will allow developers to create apps for a new type of wearable that aspires to be an Apple Watch, but in the form of glasses. It will also give more time for the company itself to deal with the privacy issue. We have recently seen several controversies related to Meta glasses in this area and, although Meta has not responded to some of those controversies, yes he has taken measures patching user manipulation and preventing the glasses from recording if they detect that the LED that works as a ‘snitch’ when we record is altered. According to Gurman, the glasses are codenamed ‘N50’ and Apple has put several of its teams to work (engineering and marketing among them) to refine not only the product, but the message around the privacy of the new device. It is, according to the Bloomberg journalist, Apple’s main priority for these glasses due to user concerns and the public and legal scrutiny in this regard. Distrust has already led both states and private entities to prohibit them in some spaces (such as swimming pools, gyms or schools, for example) and, although cell phones capture images of higher resolution and quality, wearing a camera on glasses feels more stealthy, like a quieter capture device. Apple knows that many eyes will be on this issue when it introduces the device, so it is working to emphasize not only the areas in which its glasses differ from the rest, but also why the user (and society itself) can trust it. The idea is that this device is a mix between AirPods and Apple Watch with access to Sirimusic playback, calls and information, and Gurman points out that a solution to the privacy issue would be to eliminate cameras or directly prevent the user from capturing content. Smart glasses without a camera is not that strange. Xiaomi has some and there are brands with products like this that, precisely, rely on this improvement in privacy as a marketing weapon. Bloomberg claims that Apple would be proposing glasses without a camera, but also one with cameras and sensors, but that they would only be used for the AI ​​to see the world around the user and obtain information about objects and places that would later be transferred to the user through Siri. There are two problems. The first is that, if privacy were not an issue and in an ideal world, glasses with a camera are extremely useful for recording family moments and creating hands-free content, so eliminating cameras would send those who want that to the competition. The second is that Gurman claims that Apple does not currently trust its AI enough for that to be the main selling point for a totally new product. Obviously, It is a thorny and difficult issue to address. for an Apple that is about to enter a period of celebration (with the rumored 20th anniversary iPhone), but that has several hot potatoes as potential price increases (even more) due to RAM crisis and totally new products for them like these glasses or the foldable. Many possible crises to face if something goes wrong, so it is logical that they want to tread carefully. In Xataka | With the Vision Pro, Apple created a product with revolutionary potential. He then abandoned him to his fate.

In 1962 the United States exploded an atomic bomb in orbit to create an anti-missile “wall.” The result was electrical chaos 1,000 km away

by

July 9, 1962, an aurora appears in the skies of Hawaii, Tonga and Samoa. It would be strange for these phenomena to form so far from the poles, although experience has shown us that it’s not impossible. Even so, in this case the auroras were not formed by a solar storm, but by Starfish Prime, a US experiment that went wrong. Very badly. Basically, they decided to launch an atomic bomb into space to widen the ring of natural radiation that surrounds the Earth and, thereby, create a wall against Soviet missiles. They managed to distort it, yes, but not in the way they expected. Furthermore, by the way damaged electrical systems, satellites and telephones, caused blackouts more than 1,000 kilometers away and there were even fears for the health of the astronauts who would travel to the Moon 7 years later. As a result of that incident, an international agreement was signed to prohibit atomic testing in the atmosphere, outer space or the bottom of the sea. Since then, all countries have complied with it, although there are scientists who do not trust that it will continue to be done, so they have devised a plan curiously related to Starsfish Prime. Starfish prime. The Starfish Prime project consisted of the detonation in low earth orbit of a 1.44 megaton nuclear warhead. That is, they used a bomb 100 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. The goal was to stretch the Van Allen belta ring composed of swarms of highly energetically charged particles that are trapped in the network of the Earth’s magnetic field. If the ring could be stretched, they thought it could incapacitate the Soviet missiles that posed a threat to the nation. They achieved the goal. But the rest of the consequences were too serious to want to repeat. More radiation. The amount of radiation in the Van Allen ring increased. By 1969, when the Apollo 11 astronauts they traveled to the moonthere was still a slight increase in radiation that they could absorb on their way to our satellite. Several studies were carried out to check if their health would be seriously at risk, but it was seen that the danger was manageable, so it was decided to continue with the mission. An international agreement. In 1963, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, in which they committed to freeing the atmosphere, outer space and the seabed from nuclear tests. Later, in 1967, was signed he International Outer Space Treatywith which the great world powers established a mode of action for the exploration and use of outer space. Since then there is no evidence that nuclear weapons have been sent into space. However, there are scientists who do not trust that other countries may be acting as agreed. One of them is Areg Danagoulian, from MIT, and the idea you had to solve it is, to say the least, curious. Neutron spallation. Danagoulian’s proposal consists of taking advantage of a phenomenon called neutron spallation, by which very high-energy particles are capable of causing atomic nuclei to expel their neutrons. And where have we seen that there are charged particles with a lot of energy? Indeed, in the Van Allen belt. This MIT scientist believes that if a satellite loaded with a nuclear device were to pass through this ring, something it necessarily has to do, its particles would cause the nuclei of the uranium atoms to lose neutrons. For this reason, it proposes to build a specific detector for this type of neutrons, which would be responsible for sounding the alarm if it detects said expulsion. Aurora seen from Hawaii A feasibility study. At the moment, Danagoulian has not built anything. Has carried out a feasibility study in which he demonstrates that his project is plausible. It is based on sound physics and the techniques needed already exist. If Russia had a nuclear satellite, as this and other scientists fear, it could be a useful device. Now, just because it is possible does not mean that it is easy. Neutrons coming from uranium would have to be differentiated from those from other elements and, furthermore, distinguished from those that could come directly from the Earth. There is a lot of work ahead. With Starfish Prime it was discovered that the consequences of an abrupt release of radiation in the Earth’s magnetic field can be very serious, whether it occurs artificially, with an atomic bomb, or naturally due to solar activity. It is important that we are prepared. Ideally, everyone will comply with the agreements; But, just in case, it doesn’t hurt to resort to detection techniques. Without a doubt, it is a much healthier way to take advantage of what the Van Allen belt gives us. Image | US Air Force 1352nd Photographic Group, Lookout Mountain Station/NASA In Xataka | SpaceX has launched 8,000 Starlink satellites in five years, but they are not enough. And we’re starting to understand why

Elon Musk’s two companies merge because Wall Street loves simplicity

by

SpaceX is no longer SpaceX and xAI is no longer xAI. Instead, the company has decided to merge both names, and from now on it will be called SpaceXAI. That new name makes one thing very clear: the company is selling itself to Wall Street as an AI company that also launches rockets, not the other way around. A fusion that was sung. SpaceX bought xAI —and with it, both the Grok AI model and the social network X— in early February. He did so in a 100% stock move that valued SpaceX at $1 trillion and xAI at $250 billion. The name change is above all a marketing “punchline” about that de facto merger. The strategy has as one of its probable arguments a simplification that will undoubtedly be liked on Wall Street: Musk has created many companies that seemed to operate independently, so consolidating them gives that vision of a unified purpose and objective. This is not just about image. After the merger that occurred in February there was a clear reason: the dream of orbital data centers. Musk has been talking for some time about how ground infrastructure can’t meet AI’s global electrical demand, and SpaceX has already asked the FCC for permission to deploy up to a million satellites that work like computing nodes in low orbit. Therefore, having SpaceX and xAI completely merged also by their name simplifies this entire ecosystem. Going public helps. The decision comes shortly after SpaceX debuted on the stock market in June with the largest IPO in history. It raised $75 billion and earned a valuation of $1.77 trillion. The milkmaid’s tale? Before going public, SpaceX spoke of the “Total Addressable Market” (TAM), an estimate of the total size of the business they could access if they captured 100% of the demand and the figure is colossal: 28.5 billion dollarsof which 26.5 billion would correspond to AI, 1.6 billion in connectivity (Starlink) and only 370,000 to the space segment. Part of the animation of the “fusion” between both names showed this aspect. Grok and Cursor as pieces of the future. Grok continues and will continue to operate under the SpaceXAI umbrella, and of course the infrastructure agreements already signed are also maintained. The most important, the one that Anthropic recently signed and for which will pay 1,250 million dollars monthly to SpaceXAI for access to computing in the Colossus data centers. Google will pay 920 million monthly for the same. The other piece of the future is Cursor, the AI ​​agent for programming which is key so that the company can infiltrate companies. And Tesla, what? Since the merger with SpaceX was closed, there has been speculation on Wall Street with a plausible future: that Tesla will be the next to disappear as an independent company. SpaceX’s own president, Gwynne Shotwell, recognized the day of the IPO that there is a clear “convergence” between both companies, although he avoided talking about dates. Both are already collaborating on projects such as the ambitious Terafab, and Tesla maintains an investment of $2 billion in SpaceX which, after the merger with xAI, has already generated a capital gain on paper of around 64% due to the rise in the value of SpaceX shares. A very strong option. This “merger” with Tesla seems certainly likely. Wedbush consulting analyst Dan Ives esteem that there is an 80% probability that the movement will occur, and the Kalshi betting platform handles in these moments a 51% chance of that move arriving before May 2027. Some of the groundwork is already done in practice: both companies share engineers and both face bottlenecks in the form of power supply and cooling for their AI systems. In Xataka | “The idea of ​​making a cell phone makes me want to die,” said Musk. Two years later, it is very deep with its prototype of a mobile phone with AI

The banks didn’t want anything to do with oil. Wall Street has solved it with the 2008 mortgage strategy

by

Oil and gas producers in the United States are turning to the financial magic of Wall Street to fuel their acquisitions in a frenetic race for growth. To achieve this, they are packaging thousands of pots into investment vehicles and selling stakes to American investors, replicating the exact same model that has long been used for mortgages, auto loans and other sources of securitized income. Away from the spotlight, the number of these operations has grown rapidly in recent years. Industry experts consulted by Financial Times They estimate that the total amount of debt issued through this format already ranges between 20,000 and 30,000 million dollars. It is a fundamentally opaque market, where most transactions are closed privately. Historically, independent oil and gas producers financed its operations through loans reserve-based (RBL) and high-yield debt. However, the situation has changed drastically. Some commercial banks have reduced their exposure to the extractive sector to meet their sustainability strategies under environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies, or in response to public concern over climate change. Added to this is the fear of traditional investors of “stranded assets” and the general uncertainty about the long-term viability of the sector in the midst of the energy transition. In addition, rising interest rates have raised costs, making high-yield debt too expensive or inaccessible for many producers. To survive, companies They have found an alternative way: They transfer their mature wells, known as proven, developed and producing (PDP) reserves, to a newly created Special Purpose Entity (SPE). This entity operates independently and is structured to be “bankruptcy-remote”, ensuring that the transferred assets are completely separate from the balance sheet of the producing company and safe in the event of its bankruptcy. Attracting conservative money By isolating these high-quality assets, the bonds issued by the SPE manage to achieve an “investment grade” rating. This seal of quality attracts a new class of investors who would normally avoid oil risk: pension funds, insurance companies and large asset managers looking for structured financial products with stable returns. For the oil companies, business is great. The securitization allows them to obtain advance rates (advance rates) of between 55% and 75% of the value of the reserves, figures significantly higher than those available in traditional RBL loans. To convince credit rating agencies, the secret lies in diversification and insurance. On the one hand, thousands of assets are grouped together; for example, Raisa Energy closed an operation combining more than 3,000 wells operated by more than 50 companies in more than 20 counties. On the other hand, long-term hedges are contracted to protect investors from oil fluctuations, reaching up to 85% of the entity’s production for a period of five to seven years. The “time bomb” and the cracks in private credit But financial engineering sometimes hides structural cracks. Brandon Davis, founder of energy intelligence company AFE Leaks, describes in FT These price hedges act as a “ticking time bomb” in case other production costs increase. If the price of oil rises, the company’s income is capped because the difference goes to the hedging counterparty (usually a bank). However, if at the same time there is inflation in operating costs, such as field services or water treatment, the profit margin backing the bonds could be seriously eroded. The cracks in this engineering are not an isolated case in the energy sector, but a symptom of a greater malaise in the opaque world of private credit on Wall Street, where patience (and money) is beginning to run out. This risk is framed at a time of growing tension for the entire private credit ecosystem on Wall Street. Investors are starting to demand their money back. In Cliffwater’s $33 billion fund, clients requested to withdraw 14% of their capital in a single quarter, but the firm said it only I would pay around 50% of those requests, forcing the other half to wait. If the panic spreads, traditional banks will not escape unscathed either. Lending by US banks to non-depository financial institutions, which includes private credit, reached 1.2 trillion dollars in the middle of last year, almost tripling its share compared to a decade ago. Furthermore, as with oil wells, the securitization market as a whole is extremely sensitive to external regulatory or macroeconomic shocks. A clear example occurred recently in another sector: Mpower Financing had to postpone the sale of almost $250 million in bonds backed by loans to international students. The cause was investors’ fear of the new restrictive visa policies of the Donald Trump administration. If regulatory changes or geopolitical crises hit the energy sector unexpectedly, oil securitization could face a similar collapse in demand. The danger of forgetting the nature of the business Wall Street has packaged a high-risk industry into a tame-looking product, but geology and the global market are difficult to tame. “The trick has always been to convince the rating agencies that measures have been put in place to mitigate the risk,” warns Olivier Darmounieconomist specialized in credit markets at HEC Paris. “But that’s the inherent thing about oil and gas, it’s an inherently volatile business.” Darmouni points out the ultimate risk: “If something goes wrong, the main problem will be that oil and gas will run out of capital” if producers start defaulting on bond payments. As long as the money keeps flowing, the machine will not stop. But as Laura Parrott warnshead of private fixed income at Nuveen, the market is experiencing a lot of effervescence. In scenarios of such investment fever, he concludes, “people are going to be trapped.” Image | Photo by David Vives on Unsplash Xataka | Climate change is no longer profitable: WallStreet and large investors abandon green policies

While everyone looks at Iran, China is building a nuclear “Great Wall”

by

Under the surface of the oceans one of the technological competitions is taking place quieter and more decisive of the planet. The nuclear submarines They can remain submerged for months, travel halfway around the world undetected and launch missiles from thousands of kilometers away. Therefore, each new advance under the sea usually anticipates much bigger changes in the global strategic balance. Washington’s alarm. While much of international attention is focused on the immediate conflicts in the Middle Eastanother much deeper strategic concern is beginning to take shape in Washington. Apparently, the US Navy commanders have warned before Congress that the military balance under the sea is changing rapidly and that China is accelerating a transformation process that could alter the global nuclear deterrent in the coming decades. The underwater race. we have been counting in recent months. China already owns one of the largest submarine fleets in the world and is expanding it at high speed thanks to massive investments in its military shipyards. Production has gone from less than one nuclear submarine a year to significantly higher rateswith forecasts that the fleet will reach around 70 units by the end of this decade and close to 80 by 2035. Although the United States still maintains a technological and operational advantage in submarine warfare, the rapid growth of Chinese industrial capacity is reducing that distance and forcing Washington to rethink the strategic balance in the Pacific. The transition to a nuclear fleet. One of the most important changes is structural. For decades, the Chinese submarine fleet has been based on diesel-electric vessels, which are cheaper, but have less autonomy and must surface frequently. Now Beijing is promoting a strategic shift towards more and more construction focused on nuclear submarinescapable of remaining submerged for long periods and operating at great distances from their bases. This change will allow the Chinese navy to project a presence beyond its immediate environment and complicate US naval operations. in the Pacific and other oceans. The new submarines. The technological leap will come with new generations of submarines that will begin to enter service between the end of this decade and the 1930s. Among them stand out the Type 095 models and, above all, the Type 096designed to transport nuclear ballistic missiles long range. We are talking about equipped boats with JL-4 missilessubmarines that will be able to attack large areas of US territory even operating from waters near China, much more protected by its naval and air defenses. Such a capability would significantly bolster the credibility of China’s nuclear deterrent and reduce the need to patrol more exposed areas of the Pacific. A network to protect the nuclear deterrent. Plus: the Chinese project is not limited to building more submarines. American commanders said that Beijing is developing an extensive sensor network on the seabed, surveillance cables, satellite-connected buoys and unmanned underwater vehicles capable of detecting movements in nearby oceans. This system, described by many analysts as an “underwater Great Wall,” would allow China monitor strategic routestrack foreign submarines, and protect its own nuclear fleet while patrolling in relatively safe waters. The strategic horizon of 2025 and 2040. The result of this transformation should be seen clearly in the next decade. As the number of nuclear submarines grows and this undersea sensor network is deployed, China could greatly expand its underwater presence. beyond the first chain of western Pacific islands. US forecasts suggest that, around 2040Chinese submarines could operate more frequently in the Indian Ocean, the Arctic and even the Atlantic. If this evolution is confirmed, the global naval balance could enter a new phase marked by a fearsome underwater competition between the two greatest powers on the planet. Image | Google Earth, SteKrueBe In Xataka | The US has always been the largest nuclear power on the planet. China has already surpassed it in something: submarines In Xataka | The new fear of Western fleets is not nuclear. They are conventional submarines armed with surprise and a flag: China

In 2025, AI seemed to have hit a wall of progress. A volatilized wall in February 2026

by

I fondly remember that time in which Intel and AMD fought to create the first CPU capable of reaching 1 GHz clock frequency. That race AMD won it (surprise!)but until that milestone occurred the pace was dizzying. Or so it seemed to us, because with AI the pace of launches is absolutely crazy. What a few weeks we’ve had, dear readers. Let’s see: January 27: Kimi.ai lance Kimi J2.5 February 5: Anthropic lance Claude Opus 4.6 February 5: Same day OpenAI lance GPT-5.3-Codex February 5: Kuaishou lance Kling 3.0 February 12: Z.ai lance GLM-5 February 12: ByteDance lance Seedance 2.0 February 12: MiniMax lance MiniMax 2.5 February 16: Alibaba lance Qwen3.5-397B-A17B Coming soon: DeepSeek v4, Does it call?, Gemini 3.1, … The pace is absolutely frenetic, and the LLMs that a few years ago months weeks seemed to be fantastic now they are not so much. The new versions of these language models do not stop evolving, and AI companies continue to constantly offer new developments. Almost dizzying. That, of course, has its good side and its bad side. We end 2025 with a certain boredom in the face of an AI that promised a lot but ended up changing hardly anything. Only at the end of the year was a palpable revolution seen with that spectacular combination formed by Claude Code and Opus 4.5. The Anthropic binomial amazed the developers, who for the first time seemed to agree when it came to declaring that with this type of platform they could ask the AI ​​for whatever they wanted, and that it would program it for you at once and almost always without problems. Of course there was some exaggeration in that speech, but certainly the capacity of Opus 4.5 and the degree of autonomy and Claude Code’s versatility They seemed to mark a turning point. Then OpenClaw arrived and that expectations for AI agents have once again skyrocketedbut in parallel we are seeing a real fever of launches of new generative AI models, both in video (Kling 3.0 and especially Seedance 2.0 They have been viral phenomena in themselves) as in text/code. And with each new model, the promise of performance surpassing the previous generation. At least, of course, in the benchmarks. On the left, Alibaba’s internal benchmarks for Qwen3.5. On the right, those from Anthropic for Opus 4.6. Each one compares himself with whoever he considers appropriate. Those bar graphs in the image above have become a constant, especially when the model is launched by a Chinese company. If the launcher is OpenAI, Google or Anthropic, tables are preferred. Be that as it may, the result always leads us to the same thing: each model is better than its predecessor and, normally, than many of the competition. AI Subscription Fatigue The problem with this is that this race never seems to end, and a model that seems fantastic today is not so great tomorrowwhen its competitor can barely outperform it, but it can also be considerably cheaper – Chinese models usually are – or offers other advantages such as larger context windows so that we can enter longer and longer texts – for example, large code repositories – as part of the prompt. And of course, that poses a problem for users. If Opus 4.5 was so good, one could sign up for the Pro or Max plan and pay a year in advance, but that is a priori risky, because although you will have access to new models when you release them, you will have dedicated your investment in AI subscriptions to the Anthropic model without having as much room to try those of rivals. Here short subscriptions are required: Subscribe to one model for one month so that I have some leeway in case I want to try another model the next month (or try two or three models in the same month, which is also a common case). The prices of subscriptions to AI services are also not facilitators of these multiple tests. The normal thing is to pay 20 euros for a one-month subscription, and although Chinese models are usually much cheaper, they are also usually one step behind in capacity if one needs maximum performance. But here the problem is repeated again and again: if I subscribe now to GPT-5.3-Codex, which everyone says is fantastic, how long do I pay for it, one month? Or do I also subscribe to GLM-5 to try, and next month I will try Opus 4.6 and MiniMax 2.5? All of these decisions are difficult because the perception of each model depends on each user. Each of them has their needs, their budget and their own experiences with each model, so as much as the benchmarks say one thing, With AI models it is happening to us like with wines: No matter how much they tell us that one is better than the other, we perceive them in a very personal way. And this frenetic advance also means that the expectation for models that really make a difference has been recovered. Vibe coding is not perfect, but it solves our needs better and better, and the same goes for AI agents like OpenClaw, which with their lights and shadows demonstrate that the future in which we have an AI employee—although at first they may be somewhat clumsy—working 24/7 does not seem to be that far away. These are dizzying and fascinating times for AI. Again. Image | Mohammad Rahmani In Xataka | China brought humanoid robots to the country’s biggest television show: it made them practice kung-fu with millimeter precision

a Great Wall of fishing barges

by

A silent war is being fought in the South China Sea. No weapons are fired, but they are constantly mobilized huge warshipspatrol boats and experimental missile launch platforms. The area is a hotbed in which China claims Japanese and Taiwanese territories as its own, but among so much military maneuver, the movement that China made in mid-January: Hundreds of fishing boats marched to create an artificial reef. It is the ‘Great Fishing Wall’, and the curious thing is that it has not been an isolated event. what has happened. It happened last January 11. In a report of The New York Timesit was exposed how at least 1,400 Chinese fishing boats abandoned their usual tasks to group together in a highly coordinated manner at a midpoint between China and Japan. The result was a ‘wall’ about 300 kilometers long and with a density that forced some transport ships that had to cross the area to carry out maneuvers to avoid or, directly, go around. January 9 | Image from The New York Times January 11 | Image from The New York Times It’s not the first time. The fishing choreography is impressive from a satellite view, but the most curious thing is that the January 11 maneuver was not an isolated event. It has been repeated on at least one occasion. Specifically, on Christmas Day 2025, when more than 2,000 ships gathered to form an inverse “L”. The long “wall” was also located between China and Japan, but the shorter wall was planted at a point that created a division between Taiwan and the mainland’s most important ports. In the NYT article, the analysts consulted they point They had already seen some similar unusual maneuvers, but on a scale of a couple of hundred ships, never something as massive as the operations of December 25 and January 11. Christmas Operation | Image from The New York Times Because. China has been seeking for years to consolidate its control over a large part of that maritime territory. It seeks to legitimize its sovereignty over islands and reefs that Japan and Taiwan They maintain that they are theirs property as part of the “historical territory”. To apply pressure, from time to time China takes its warships out for a walksomething to which Japan also responds with their own (even with plans to rearm as they had not done since World War II). Another way to mark muscle is through dozens of artificial islands that China has been building for decadesand all to ensure strategic trade routes and reinforce its position in the regional system, but also to exercise sovereignty in an area with valuable resources such as fishing (something that China needs like eating), the hydrocarbons and until rare earth (that China already dominatesbut you can always cover more in such a powerful strategic resource). The result is the militarization of that region, with a United States that has joined the ‘call’ seeking to prevent China from covering more than it currently has and taking off state-of-the-art weapons in collaboration with Japan. Maritime Militia. Two factors stand out in this story. The first is the speed at which the ships were organized and the precision with which they headed to the indicated point. The second is how effective the blocking is. Seeing that the transports had to avoid this fishing militia (which is a term that has been used before), in a crisis situation, China could mobilize hundreds of civilian ships to obstruct sea lanes, complicating military operations such as ship deployment and supply. Because the theory indicates that the enemy powers would not shoot at or run over those civilian ships. Lure. And, of course, American analysts have not missed the opportunity to give their vision. Thomas Shugart is a former US naval officer and noted that these masses of small ships could be more than just a blockade: They could act as decoys for missiles and torpedoes. Radars would be overwhelmed by a map full of small targets, camouflaging and protecting the real warships. They do not neglect military force. Faced with such a deployment, other analysts “praised” the coordination capacity to ensure that so many ships entered into a formation like the one seen on both dates and, as usual, China has not said anything about these maneuvers, but from the United States it has been verified that they were real ships, no false signs to confuse. And most importantly, the last maneuver occurred days after China completed some military maneuvers around Taiwan with the aim of blockading the island. Because, although the maneuver of thousands of fishing boats mounting a physical blockade is something striking, the South China Sea has witnessed several more serious movements by China in recent days. For example, it has been reported that The J-16s of the People’s Liberation Army have approached dangerously at Taiwanese F-16s, even launching flares when Taiwanese fighters were going to intercept them. Also the crossing of a red line by China when a military drone, for the first time, invaded Taiwan airspace. And all while the US is convinced that China is doing nuclear tests while calling for calm. The end, military maneuvers on the maritime border have been a constant for years, but the coordinated choreography of fishing boats can be a monumental headache if someone decides to attack civilian vessels, no matter how much they block critical routes. And it is something that seems like a brutal pressure weapon with which it is not necessary to fire a single shot to exert that influence. Images | Ernest Gunasekara-Rockwell In Xataka | China once again shows its spaceship worthy of ‘Star Wars’. It is so beast that it is impossible with current technology

We believed Amazon was already spending too much on AI. Your answer to Wall Street: spend even more

by

The honeymoon between AI and Wall Street is over. Amazon knows this very well, having just received that dreaded “we have to talk” message from investors with a drop of more than 10% in its shares yesterday. It seemed that the stock markets rewarded the fact that companies They invested absurd amounts of money in AI. It is just what Amazon announced yesterday, but that strategy has had a totally negative response in the markets. what has happened. Amazon presented yesterday financial results for the last quarter of 2025. Revenue grew by 14% and net profit by 6%, modest figures that were not very popular. But above all, I did not like that Amazon announced that it estimated a capex (capital expenditure) of $200 billion in 2026 in AI. Amazing. Wall Street used to reward, now it punishes. In 2025, that capex was $131 billion, and Amazon is determined to continue betting everything on AI. Before, investors rewarded that audacity. Now they are punishing her: the shares plummeted 11% “after hours“, and it will be today when those actions start with that reflected fall. We want return on investment. That market reaction is not an isolated event. Amazon’s fall comes just hours after Microsoft or Google suffered similar falls. The market before valued the potential of AIbut now he demands return on investment more than ever and has become impatient. Big Tech had operated with a blank check, but when revenue forecasts fall short of estimates, optimism evaporates. Income grows, yes, but not that much. The real problem is the imbalance between capex and revenue growth. AWS grew a spectacular 24% in revenue, but spending is growing at an even greater rate. Google, Amazon and Microsoft are trapped in a kind of infrastructure “arms race”: the first one to stop spending loses, and that is a big problem. He who does not risk, does not gain. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy explained that “this is an extraordinarily rare opportunity to forever change the size of AWS and Amazon as a whole. (…) We are going to invest aggressively to be the leaders.” It is a speech identical to that Mark Zuckerberg said a few months ago when he said he was willing to lose hundreds of billions on AI: not investing them would be worse for Meta. But Amazon is much more than AI. There is another disturbing element in this huge bet by Amazon. The reality is that the company has many expensive fronts. From the Kuiper satellite network to compete with Starlink to the robotization of its Whole Foods logistics and other areas. When adding AI to the equation, the math doesn’t seem to work out. Optimism ends. Historically, large technology companies have taken advantage of the optimism of the market and investors to justify spending forecasts completely unrelated to their income. In 2026, with the macroeconomic situation of “we no longer like risk” —tell it to bitcoin— and the pressure for profitability, “free optimism” has disappeared. If you are going to spend like crazy, you have to raise like crazy too. Amazon is doing well, AI is not. This total commitment to AI is preventing us from seeing that the rest of Amazon’s businesses are doing very well. Online sales grew by 10% and advertising grew by a notable 23%. E-commerce, the cornerstone on which Amazon was built and operates, is funding the AI ​​party, but it is turning into a bottomless pit. Like Qatar’s GDP. According to the world bankQatar’s GDP in 2024 was $219 billion. That Amazon invests almost the same in AI data centers alone is dizzying. It is the same thing that we said yesterday about Google, which also projected a capex of 135 billion dollars by 2026. The figures are no longer dizzying: they are crazy. Beware, obsolescence. And all that investment can end up wasted, especially because there is an implicit risk in the data centers that are built: in three or five years they could become obsolete if the architecture of AI chips changes radically. It is bread for today, and hunger for tomorrow… without counting the energy factor or the water consumption. Xataka | While Silicon Valley seeks electricity, China subsidizes it: this is how it wants to win the AI ​​war

a 300 km “moving wall” to close sea routes instantly

by

In the constant pulse between China and TaiwanBeijing has been looking for ways to increase pressure without crossing the threshold of an open conflict. As maneuvers, exercises and actions in gray areas multiply, each new movement points to a key idea: control the environment. If a few days ago it was drone entrynow another formula has appeared. A wall that doesn’t shoot. He told it through images the new york times. China has shown that it can create a gigantic sea barrier without firing a single shot, simply gathering thousands of ships fishing vessels in formations so dense that they disrupt traffic and force other vessels to go around or through them with uncomfortable maneuvers. In one of the recent operations, around of 1,400 boats They suddenly abandoned their routines and concentrated on the East China Sea until they formed a rectangle of more than 300 kmwith a presence so compact that it was seen in the navigation data as a kind of continuous obstacle. The practical effect is obvious. If this is done near key trade routes, chaos pcan arrive very quickly without anyone having to declare a formal block. Maritime militia and war in gray. The relevant thing about the movement is not only how many ships appear, but what does it suggest about who It moves them and for what. Experts and analysts interpret these concentrations as a state-led exercise that dovetails with the use of maritime militia, a network of civilian vessels trained to support strategic objectives. Plus: it is a perfect tool to operate in that ambiguous zone where there is no clear attack, but there is a real pressure on the sea. It is a way of imposing control without showing frigates in the front row and without assuming the political cost of open military action, while the rest are forced to decide whether to treat that mass as civilians or as an organized force. Rehearsal of blocking… without calling it a blocking. In a crisis scenario over Taiwan, a mass like this no need to “enforce” a lock by force to be useful. It is enough to hinder, slow down and complicate the movement of commercial or military support ships. It can force route changes, introduce delays, create points of friction and increase the risk of incidents. It can also serve to mark areas where traffic becomes unsafe or impassable for hours or days. That kind of pressure fits ideas like “quarantine”which seeks to strangle the functioning of an area without completely crossing the threshold of open war. Saturation as a tactic. Another advantage of this “wall” is that it converts the sea into tactical noise. Thousands of small ships together can overwhelm surveillance and complicate the identification of real threats, especially if there are drones, radars and automated systems trying to classify contacts. In a tense situation, this saturation can also act as a screen. It can conceal movements, force the adversary to expend attention and resources, and open space for other operations. Although each ship is weak on its own, value comes when they multiply until they become a problem of management rather than combat. What is revealed. The Times analysts who have followed Chinese activity in disputed seas for years highlighted that it is not usual Seeing such a large and orderly formation, and maintaining relatively stable positions, does not resemble a normal fishing pattern. The important thing here is the organizational muscle. Gathering thousands of ships at a specific point, in a short time, and positioning them with discipline indicates a clear improvement in command, control, communications and planning. This suggests that China is practicing something that you can repeat when you need it, and that does not depend on improvisations or simple crowds. Why does it matter so much? The trainings were given in the east china seaclose to major routes that connect with Shanghai, one of the most important port centers in the world. It’s not just any place. They are maritime corridors through which goods pass daily, including Chinese exports and flows that connect entire economies. Controlling or interrupting these steps is a way strategic pressure first level, on Taiwan, on Japan and also on any actor that has to operate there, including the United States and its allies. Beijing’s official silence fits with the logic of these actions. There is no need to announce anything if what you want is to check capabilities, measure reactions and leave a clear message with facts. A difficult model to answer. The really surprising thing about this is that a fishing barrier It is a relatively cheap instrument compared to deploying large military unitsand it can also be scaled. If today there are 1,400 or 2,000 barges, tomorrow there could be many more in a time of crisis. And for the rival(s), the answer will always be uncomfortable. The main reason is that it is not easy to justify brute force against ships that present themselves as civilians, but it is also not feasible to ignore them if they are effectively blocking a critical path. That’s the value of this “weapon” that does not fire a single projectile. That of forcing a choice between tolerating the pressure or escalating first, while China gains time, control and the ability to shape the pace of the situation. Image | Planet Labs, Ernest Gunasekara-Rockwell, Anna Frodesiak, Micromesistius In Xataka | China has just crossed the same red line as Russia: for the first time, a military drone has invaded Taiwan’s airspace In Xataka | The US has just sent an unprecedented package to Taiwan. Inside are the instructions and weapons against an invasion

Telefónica leaves Wall Street through the back door. Goodbye to almost four decades in the largest market in the world

by

Telefónica has started the procedures to delist your shares from the New York Stock Exchangewhere it has been listed since 1987. The securities will stop trading on Wall Street in a matter of days once the documentation is filed with the SEC. The telecom will only maintain its listing in Madrid, in the Spanish continuous market. Why is it important. The movement closes a symbolic chapter that began when Telefónica became the first Spanish company to be listed on the largest market in the world. But the symbolism was left behind: today maintaining that presence involves high administrative costs and regulatory demands that no longer compensate. The trading volume in New York is residual and investor interest is practically non-existent. The context. Telefónica’s stock has fallen more than 90% in the last fifteen years. Its current valuation is on the floor, very far from that giant that in the nineties became the most valuable company in Spain. The dividend, which for years was the main attraction for conservative investors, has been successively cut, the last time this quarter. Buying in Madrid is more direct, cheaper and with the same liquidity as in New York, where securities are hardly traded. Between the lines. This decision fits into the strategic plan presented in November by Marc Murtra, focused on aggressively reducing costs. Telefónica has been lowering its blinds on all fronts: Sold subsidiaries throughout Latin America except Brazil. Reduced the dividend. Presented an ERE which is ending its negotiation phase. And now it is abandoning stock markets where being present no longer adds value. Also will stop trading in Lima. The figure. 4,554 departures are contemplated by the ERE that was agreed this Wednesday with the unions, 26% of the workforce in Spain. Cost savings are the obsession of the new management: 3 billion annually until 2030. Yes, but. Investors who have ADR certificates (American Depositary Receipts) will be able to exchange them for common shares in Spain or hold and trade them in US over-the-counter markets. Telefónica will provide both options, although it is evident that it prefers the first. The background. The exit from Wall Street is not an isolated or recent decision: The telecommunications sector has lost interest from investors, especially in Europe. It is a mature business, highly regulated, with tight margins and little ability to surprise. Telefónica today is a very different company from the one that debuted on Wall Street: smaller, more regional, more European. Its new strategy focuses on four markets (Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and Brazil) and on consolidating itself as a reference operator with profitable scale, in addition to increasing its focus on technological solutions. Marking agenda. Wednesday’s day at the Distrito Telefónica offices north of Madrid was hectic. The contrast. When Telefónica went public in New York in 1987, it placed certificates worth $375 million, the largest influx of European capital on Wall Street up to that time. The telecom was then majority owned by the State and its debut was seen as a milestone of internationalization. Today it leaves unnoticed, recognizing that the regulatory burden and administrative costs of the SEC outweigh any benefits. Go deeper. The obligation to report detailed information to the SEC was useful at the time: thanks to it, data such as the price that STC or SEPI paid to enter the capital were known, information that the Spanish CNMV would never have required to reveal. But that level of transparency also has a cost, and Telefónica has decided that it is no longer worth paying for. In Xataka | The Government has had an idea so that the next blackout does not leave us without mobile data: let the operators pay Featured image | Telefónica, Lo Lo

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.