Even better you can have both like a lot of countries in Europe. The access to public healthcare also keeps the premium down. Extensive cover for a family of four is less than 200 in Spain a month out of pocket.
Actually in Spain Social Security is 30 to 40% of what you earn. From the remainder 60% it is up to 50% in IRPF taxes, so you could pay 70% of what you earn.
The trick is that Franco hid the social security tax in the company side so normal people don't see it, but it is there.
Over that there is IBI for your house, there is IVA on anything you buy, and there are central bank inflation taxing anything you own in absolute terms.
Oh don't get me started on the taxes. Just the solidarity tax they added from the younger generation to the pensioners makes my blood boil. How about cutting the top pensions and returning some of the money to the bottom of pile instead. The tax regime is also destroying small independent businesses.
But we have at least the option of additional private coverage and it is not crazy expensive like in the US.
Im always surprised people forget that Intel exists and still has high performance nodes (just release panther lake on their newest node). They even have a plant in Ireland.
It's not that people forget that Intel exists, it's that they are effectively irrelevant to the foundry business.
> Becoming a meaningful customer of Samsung or Intel is very risky: it takes years to get a chip working on a new process, which hardly seems worth it if that process might not be as good, and if the company offering the process definitely isn’t as customer service-centric as TSMC.
TSMC is a reliable supplier and there are no doubts about conflicts of interest. The same cannot be said for Intel and Samsung. If Intel's AI chip business faces chip shortages (like what may already be happening), can their foundry be depended on to ship your chips?
No one wants to be the idiot who staked their future on Intel and then gets wiped out when Intel doesn't deliver.
No one forgets that. Intel will get some customers. It's inevitable because according to the article, TSMC had severely underestimated AI demand in 2023 and 2024 by not drastically increasing capex in those years.
Delivery of nuclear weapon via shipping container might seem like a deterrent but it's kind of the opposite thing.
For something to be a deterrent it must have a few properties. Delivery taking a non-zero amount of time and producing a gigantic visible ordeal from outer space is a feature here. A container bomb going off somewhere in a civilian logistics chain is a surprise. Surprises cannot be deterrent by their very definition. The inability to ~instantly attribute the attack to some party would only invite additional instability.
Container ships tend to be fairly slow to respond and may not function as expected during a nuclear war.
The only way for this to work as a retaliatory measure is to have the weapons already in place at the target locations. Now, imagine if someone were to discover the weapon and trace it back to whomever installed it. This is effectively a slow motion nuclear exchange that was initiated by the "defender".
A key feature of those subs is that it won't be six months later. It will be an hour later because one is already stationed just outside your waters.
It's also a bit more sneaky than a damn merchant vessel. You really think you're getting secrecy of a nuke existing on a merchant vessel? Why? You have given the enemy intelligence agency nothing more than an entry level homework assignment. That vessel is 99/100 getting intercepted or sunk. How many of your merchant vessels are otherwise sailing towards the country that just armegeddon'd you?
Also used to run a nuclear weapons program back in the day[1]. Though, to be honest, I think it'd be politically impossible to revive today. There's barely political will to build new nuclear power.
I do not think that nuclear power is viewed same as nuclear war heads. One is perceived as potentional ecological catasprophe and the second one as a weapon of retaliation.
I honestly don't think most people understand either. Younger generations are a bit more open minded, but for a lot of people who lived through the news reports of Cs137-fallout from Chernobyl raining down on them, nuclear anything is represents an invisible and scary boogyman.
I like this explanation why people in old soviet block tent much more to support nuclear energy. When Chernobyl accident happened, communists we're mainly silent about that but countries which we're affected and had a free press were (rightfully) panicking so general population became scared about the use of nuclear as a energy source.
Apparently the weld that broke joined an old segment with a new one installed last year as the tracks are renovated piecemeal.
Still the media in question, "El Mundo", is a mouthpiece for the opposition parties, seeking to create indignation against the government and scoring the head of the Transport Minister in particular.
They also want to make a parallel with the situation of the former President of the Valencian Community, from their party, who had to finally resign one year after being unreachable for hours on a date while hundreds of valencians drowned as his administration waffled aimlessly.
Of course the government is ultimately responsible for the state of the infrastructure, so the Minister well might have to resign after all is said and done, but the innuendo in that piece is pure politicking, not serious journalism.
I enjoy running these kind of articles through an analysis using chatgpt. Language matters and this is a pretty terribly slanted article trying to hype up fear.
Sometimes I wonder if we would be better having a plugin that did this kind of analysis to give you a pointer towards if the writer is even trying to do their job of being objective or think they need to "make the news" to save the world.
The Smithsonian article uses a well-known set of high-impact narrative devices—catastrophic metaphor, point-of-no-return language, scale shock, authority stacking, vivid exemplars, moralization, and fear-to-action solution framing—to intensify perceived urgency and motivate concern.
You have no idea how that would destroy the Norwegian State. They are addicted to money from that fund. A collapse in it's value would have direct impact on the finances of the state. Nearly 1/4 of the budget is funded from that found a year.
The politicians have set a self-imposed limit[1] on how much they can use per year. It's currently 3% of the funds value, to ensure we don't need to reign in too much during hard times[2].
However politicians have tried to use less, for 2026 they plan[3] to use 452B NOK which is roughly 2.13%.
However as OP points out, the total budget is around 2100B NOK, so the oil money pays for roughly a quarter. And that's becoming a bit of a problem in my view as well.
When I hitchhiked around Japan in 1999 snackbars were our goto places to have a drink as there was always some affordable home cooking (I was pretty broke) and decently priced drinks. We also had such a great time meeting locales.
reply