Looking back again on the article, I can see why you are confused. The author has outright fabricated this whole idea of chip sovereignty being a part of Jupit

Looking back again on the article, I can see why you are confused. The author has outright fabricated this whole idea of chip sovereignty being a part of Jupiter. I have no idea where he (and therefore you) got this idea from, but its simply not true - and further points to him just making some excuse to euro-bash. It seems to be a sign of the times under the mad king’s reign. When facts don’t support the narrative, they get reshaped to suit the mood. This kind of editorialising, where political sentiment is passed off as technical insight, doesn’t just weaken the argument, it undermines trust in serious discourse. FYI, the selection criteria only allocated 100 points of a total of 1100 (of which a minimum of 50 were required) to "Contribution to the objectives of the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking" (https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/about/discover-eurohpc-ju_en#mission https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/about/discover-eurohpc-ju_en#mi...). i.e. Sovereignty was not a key objective. This is all public knowledge that you can easily find for yourself. EDIT - link to the procurement doc: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/tender-details/docs/etender/13127/13127_151622_EN-EN_EuroHPC_Descriptive_document_EXA_ENG_V1.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/port...