6 ms·

Communication on European Tech Sovereignty, and an EU Open-Source Strategy

99 points by jrepinc 4mo ago

blfr 4mo ago
I would rather we be great at tech and sovereign as byproduct than try to copy Americans, poorly. Trump's admin is trying to put breaks on new AI models. Meanwhile we will make procurement even heavier and slower with additional requirements and add more regulation for checkbox enforcement so massive inefficient enterprises can keep newcomers out. That said it was a cool material to test my new open webui setup with a docling container for large pdfs. Works like a charm. I highly recommend it.
- dgellow 4mo ago
  What part is copying the US?
RandomLensman 4mo ago
Where is the investment coming from (the capital markets union/savings and investment union isn't there so far)? How to make building infrastructure faster? Could some other regulation be removed to aid AI and tech use? Not convinced adding regulation alone will solve things in European tech.
- s_dev 4mo ago
  Trump's actions are pushing Europeans towards federalisation as a broader trend. More specifically things like this are happening quietly in the background: https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-inc-making-business-easier-european-union-2026-03-18_en https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-inc-maki... This mandates a few things: Countries must do certain things in English to ensure a common language. Simple liquidation for bankruptcies, register once and operate across the EU. Places like Germany have loads of talent but are cumbersome to setup a startup etc. This reduces that. Things won't change overnight but a decade from now things will look a bit different, capital markets won't match the US by then but I expect the dependence trend will start to have reversed. There is no crystal ball for these things.
  - RandomLensman 4mo ago
    There is stuff happening but I think most of it is addressing side issues (and cannot address some cores outside of an actual USofE, if then). For example, how would that overcome local resistance to new infrastructure or reduce the huge amount of (local) regulations in a significant way?
    - s_dev 4mo ago
      The US has these issues as well as still has a strong tech sector, you also have to keep in mind a successful outcome for the EU won't be what the US has right now either. You get charts like this floating around the internet: https://postimg.cc/Yh8TPs8g https://postimg.cc/Yh8TPs8g Nearly always presented as a 'dick swinging' look how great we are chart in a EU vs US vs China stand off. However it reveals flaws in the US as well. A successful tech sector in the EU will be lots of small bubbles where the combined area is somewhat approximates what is in the US and China. A handful of giants is not desired here in the EU, you can see the issues this presents in the US as well, chiefly: it's distorting the political system to becoming like Russia. Oligarchy. That's not even getting in to the chart is deeply flawed but that's not the point I'm making.
      - RandomLensman 4mo ago
        Yes, certain issues are found in the US, too, but doesn't mean they shouldn't perhaps be addressed. Some things also might need scale at least in aggregate and either tech leads to some sort of Coasian singularity or having a lot of small things comes with additional transaction costs.
      - joe_mamba 4mo ago
        >A handful of giants is not desired here in the EU Then explain the giant Airbus. Or the giant VW. Or the giant Siemens. Or the giant Dassault. Or the giant ABB. Or the giant Stellantis. Or the giants Shell and Total. Or the giants BNP Paribas and Santander. This whole "EU hates giants" trope being repeated on HN is just unfounded cope at EU's failure to scale and grow its newer domestic players to challenge the ones from the US and China, so they spin its weakness and failures as some form of benevolent virtue the EU is doing for the world by not building giant companies, when the truth is it just can't even though the EU would love to have US style giants as they bring in a lot of revenue along with geopolitical soft and hard power the EU is severely lacking ATM. If EU actually hated giants it would break up Airbus, Siemens, Dassault, Stellantis and others into smaller companies for more competition instead of supporting mergers that support its domestic monopolies. > it's distorting the political system to becoming like Russia. Oligarchy. It isn't. EU's own domestic giants are good enough at distorting EU politics without being FANG size. See VW political spending after Dieselgate. Or the political spending of the auto sector in general to shape regulations in their favor since they control so many jobs across EU's largest economies. If you have a corrupt government that gives in to corporate interests, it's not the size of your companies that's the cause, it's the corruption of your elected leaders, since no company is above the government no matter how big it would get, as the government has the courts, police and military which no company can match, which is why companies always bend over to government requests A Russia style oligarchy comes if the government gets too big, powerful and unaccountable, not from the size of corporations. Putin didn't attack Ukraine because corporate Russian lobbyist paid him to. In fact most Russian businesses, oligarchs and entrepreneurs got absolutely wrecked by Putin's idea to invade Ukraine, they never wanted this because they have more to lose from this. It's the government that fucks shit up for the people, not the corporations. Big corporations just dance to the tune the government plays.
schnitzelstoat 4mo ago
I'm cautiously optimistic. The Cloud and AI Development Act looks especially interesting: --- # Capacity * at least tripling the EU’s data centre capacity within the next 5–7 years; * simplifying and accelerating permitting and deployment of data centres; * improving access to key resources such as energy, land, water and financing; ensuring sufficient computing capacity to support AI, cloud services and data-intensive applications. --- Given the prevalence of 'degrowth' ideas here in the EU and the severe NIMBY problem (even with stuff as basic as housing let alone data centres), I'm somewhat sceptical they are going to be able to pull this off.
- cryo32 4mo ago
  Based on the Iran war situation I don't think we should be building more datacentres for security. They are easy targets. We should be concentrating on resilience and that means distributing capacity and capability where possible.
  - johannes1234321 4mo ago
    For distributing having more data centers seems like a prerequisit to me. One can argue about size etc, though.
  - dgellow 4mo ago
    You’re describing having a bunch of data centers in different location and enough redundancy. What makes you against data centers themselves? They are just a way to pool resources to benefit from economy of scale. They don’t have to be enormous
    - cryo32 4mo ago
      Centralised "economies of scale" mean consolidating risks into geographical and corporate ownership. I mean look at the current situation: that consolidation means there are a few corporate players, any of whom could just pull the plug on a huge amount of infrastructure in a war or other geopolitical mess. Also we have a layer of abstraction above the datacentre now which is the cloud provider. And that does not necessarily (especially in our case) have an economic advantage. And it is again a single point of failure. One cloud provider compromise and the scope of compromise is across multiple datacentres and businesses and potentially national governments. I'm suggesting bringing a lot of stuff back in house or within tens of thousands of small datacentres where there's a few racks max. And we keep our abstraction depth low. I'd go as far as designing things to be permanently disconnected or just occasionally connected these days. Even single-user stuff reaches into clouds and datacentres when it doesn't need to.
cryo32 4mo ago
I look forward to the day we have a sovereign CPU, RAM, storage, ancillary ICs, production line, supply chain, software stack and associated infra than I can walk into a shop and buy and use myself. I don't think it'll ever happen though. These initiatives are mostly fluff. Throw everything into AI because it's the current fad but not even look at stuff that runs everything RIGHT NOW. If anything was to happen war-wise, we'll be running everything on recycled trash.
- soco 4mo ago
  No true Scostsman, aye me lad. Now really, because big bang doesn't work, means nothing else should be even tried? Are you even from the EU to actually know, or just feel bothered by the anti-US sentiment oozing from those initiatives? If that helps, my feeling is that it's not anti-US, just a normal reaction to the acts and thoughts of the beloved best-leader-ever ruling the US right now, and his faithful elite. It's trying to protect oneselves, maybe a bit of rallying under the (blue) flag, and defeatism has no place in it.
  - cryo32 4mo ago
    I'm in the UK. My partner is German. I spend a lot of time in the EU. It's really the "this is fine dog" realising that it's not fine and apathy and poor governmental and corporate decisions over the last 30 years have blown up in our faces.
- whateverboat 4mo ago
  We have now sovereign CPUs but we are struggling to get HPC ones. They will be there soon though in 5-6 years. RAM is already possible for Europe to manufacture if they can get the fab. Supply chain remains a question mark for the raw materials. Software stack is almost there. In effect, I would say we are around 60% there. The most important thing actually missing is Fabs. Everything else I see a straightforward path with money and time.
  - fidotron 4mo ago
    HPC will always be years away. There is a big structural problem in Europe with these sort of initiatives: people receive grants for attacking identified problems; if you actually solve the problem then you have to find a new problem for your next grant, so it's best to not actually solve the problem but claim your next proposal will. Combine that by not actually wanting to reward people properly when problems are solved and you have the root of why eurotech has totally stagnated.
ofrzeta 4mo ago
Not sure what to make of this. There is also IPCEI-CIS https://www.8ra.com/ipcei-cis/ https://www.8ra.com/ipcei-cis/ but I can't see that in that strategy. Or it is buried somewhere deep. There's going to be a Open Source Policy and Ecosystem Forum on June 8 in Brussels https://events.linuxfoundation.org/open-source-policy-ecosystem-forum/ https://events.linuxfoundation.org/open-source-policy-ecosys...
- BodyCulture 4mo ago
  Funny how they are publishing free advertising for X, fb, yt etc. on their website. This is telling more about the situation than any speaker at the conference will be able to do.
  - microtonal 4mo ago
    The world isn't built in a day. After years of nothing, the last few months a lot more EU bodies and even national politicians/officials have been joining Mastodon. It's certainly nowhere near the majority yet, but things are clearly moving.
eurosovereign 4mo ago
[flagged]
- 3997531578 4mo ago
  [dead]
fermigier 4mo ago
Commentary (in French) from CNLL, the French Open Source Business Association: https://cnll.fr/news/strategie-open-source-europeenne-deux-reculs-significatifs/ https://cnll.fr/news/strategie-open-source-europeenne-deux-r... Here's a TL;DR in English: CNLL communiqué on the adopted EU Tech Sovereignty Package (3 June 2026) On 3 June 2026, the European Commission adopted the Tech Sovereignty Package — Communication, Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA) proposal, and EU Open Source Strategy. The CNLL confirms the essence of the historic shift it had welcomed in late May: open source is elevated to the rank of an instrument of European industrial policy. But the CNLL publicly regrets two significant setbacks introduced between the leaked draft and the adopted text: - "Open source first" (CADA Article 41) — the title is ambitious, the body is weak. The verb is "encourage", word for word the verb used by France's Digital Republic Law since 2016, with broad derogations ("security, total cost, and any other duly justified objective criterion") and no documented or auditable assessment requirement. The phrase "open source first" appears only in the article's title, not in its body. - "Public money, public code" (CADA Article 42) — reduced to a conditional cataloguing obligation: the article imposes nothing on the decision to release software, only on the mechanism when an entity discretionarily chooses to do so. The structural publication obligation that the European open source industry has defended for ten years is not in the CADA. Two further lexical softenings in the Communication: "key lever" became "crucially contributes"; "sovereignty-washing" was removed. The draft promised to go beyond the limit France has known since 2016 — the adopted text reproduces it at European scale. Confirmed acquis: the OSI definition is now anchored (incl. EUPL); APELL (the European Open Source Business Association) is named in the document; Open Source Maintenance Instrument with fork capability and security-mirroring programme are retained; envelope doubled from 1 to 2 B€ / 7 years (public + private); EuroStack cited in CADA IA study footnote. The CADA is still a proposal. The CNLL calls for industry and MEP mobilisation over the next twelve months on four priorities: (1) transform Article 41 into an enforceable obligation in the trilogue, with documented/auditable assessment of derogations, in convergence with European OSS editors signatories of the 3 June open letter; (2) mobilise the existing national legal acquis (Article 16 Digital Republic, Article L. 123-4-1 Code de l'éducation, Italian Article 68, German IT-Planungsrat, Dutch frameworks), which becomes proportionally more important; (3) defend the licence-based legal definition of OSS; (4) neutralise the practice of sovereignty washing — push enforceable jurisdictional immunity criteria (no CLOUD Act / FISA exposure) at the highest CADA sovereignty levels.
ainspotting 4mo ago
[flagged]
DeathArrow 4mo ago
Europe started going backwards from some time. Energy is becoming more expensive, raw materials are becoming more expensive, industry is thickening, jobs are closed, education is not ok, most important tech developments are happening elsewhere, we don't have a thriving startup environment, most large tech companies are established elsewhere. Maybe we will wake up at some point and do something. Discourses won't put foot on the table and won't help with economic competition.
- Angostura 4mo ago
  I mean, yes - if your biggest external source of energy declares war, and your hitherto trusted defence partner goes rogue - it's going to have a chilling effect and the measures needed to address that will hit both the economy and the populous
  - RandomLensman 4mo ago
    Why would measures aiming to create more energy supply necessarily hit the economy and the populous?
    - AndrewDucker 4mo ago
      Losing a chunk of your energy supply, while simultaneously having to build a bunch of new energy supply, will hit the economy.
      - RandomLensman 4mo ago
        Yes, losing hurts, but building new supply would necessarily hurt why (instead of being accretive)?
        AndrewDucker 4mo ago
        Because it will cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. If you have 300 froblets per month being shipped to you, and suddenly you have only 200 froblets arriving and you have to spend £5 billion building a froblet factory, then you're both going to be short on froblets and high on expenses at least until the factory is built. And yes, in the long run you'll have built the factory, will be getting a safer supply of froblets, and everything will be sunshine and roses, but while you're building it all that's an extra expense that you have to find the money for.
voxleone 4mo ago
[dead]
sixhobbits 4mo ago
[dead]
storus 4mo ago
OK, so a bunch of larger behind-the-times EU tech companies get a few billions over a few years. So what? If they were capable of executing before, they would have been competing already. Some bureaucrat is not going to conjure up desired qualities.
continueops_com 4mo ago
[flagged]

99 points by jrepinc 4mo ago

blfr 4mo ago

I would rather we be great at tech and sovereign as byproduct than try to copy Americans, poorly. Trump's admin is trying to put breaks on new AI models. Meanwhile we will make procurement even heavier and slower with additional requirements and add more regulation for checkbox enforcement so massive inefficient enterprises can keep newcomers out. That said it was a cool material to test my new open webui setup with a docling container for large pdfs. Works like a charm. I highly recommend it.

dgellow 4mo ago
What part is copying the US?

RandomLensman 4mo ago

Where is the investment coming from (the capital markets union/savings and investment union isn't there so far)? How to make building infrastructure faster? Could some other regulation be removed to aid AI and tech use? Not convinced adding regulation alone will solve things in European tech.

s_dev 4mo ago
Trump's actions are pushing Europeans towards federalisation as a broader trend. More specifically things like this are happening quietly in the background: https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-inc-making-business-easier-european-union-2026-03-18_en https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-inc-maki... This mandates a few things: Countries must do certain things in English to ensure a common language. Simple liquidation for bankruptcies, register once and operate across the EU. Places like Germany have loads of talent but are cumbersome to setup a startup etc. This reduces that. Things won't change overnight but a decade from now things will look a bit different, capital markets won't match the US by then but I expect the dependence trend will start to have reversed. There is no crystal ball for these things.
- RandomLensman 4mo ago
  There is stuff happening but I think most of it is addressing side issues (and cannot address some cores outside of an actual USofE, if then). For example, how would that overcome local resistance to new infrastructure or reduce the huge amount of (local) regulations in a significant way?
  - s_dev 4mo ago
    The US has these issues as well as still has a strong tech sector, you also have to keep in mind a successful outcome for the EU won't be what the US has right now either. You get charts like this floating around the internet: https://postimg.cc/Yh8TPs8g https://postimg.cc/Yh8TPs8g Nearly always presented as a 'dick swinging' look how great we are chart in a EU vs US vs China stand off. However it reveals flaws in the US as well. A successful tech sector in the EU will be lots of small bubbles where the combined area is somewhat approximates what is in the US and China. A handful of giants is not desired here in the EU, you can see the issues this presents in the US as well, chiefly: it's distorting the political system to becoming like Russia. Oligarchy. That's not even getting in to the chart is deeply flawed but that's not the point I'm making.
    - RandomLensman 4mo ago
      Yes, certain issues are found in the US, too, but doesn't mean they shouldn't perhaps be addressed. Some things also might need scale at least in aggregate and either tech leads to some sort of Coasian singularity or having a lot of small things comes with additional transaction costs.
    - joe_mamba 4mo ago
      >A handful of giants is not desired here in the EU Then explain the giant Airbus. Or the giant VW. Or the giant Siemens. Or the giant Dassault. Or the giant ABB. Or the giant Stellantis. Or the giants Shell and Total. Or the giants BNP Paribas and Santander. This whole "EU hates giants" trope being repeated on HN is just unfounded cope at EU's failure to scale and grow its newer domestic players to challenge the ones from the US and China, so they spin its weakness and failures as some form of benevolent virtue the EU is doing for the world by not building giant companies, when the truth is it just can't even though the EU would love to have US style giants as they bring in a lot of revenue along with geopolitical soft and hard power the EU is severely lacking ATM. If EU actually hated giants it would break up Airbus, Siemens, Dassault, Stellantis and others into smaller companies for more competition instead of supporting mergers that support its domestic monopolies. > it's distorting the political system to becoming like Russia. Oligarchy. It isn't. EU's own domestic giants are good enough at distorting EU politics without being FANG size. See VW political spending after Dieselgate. Or the political spending of the auto sector in general to shape regulations in their favor since they control so many jobs across EU's largest economies. If you have a corrupt government that gives in to corporate interests, it's not the size of your companies that's the cause, it's the corruption of your elected leaders, since no company is above the government no matter how big it would get, as the government has the courts, police and military which no company can match, which is why companies always bend over to government requests A Russia style oligarchy comes if the government gets too big, powerful and unaccountable, not from the size of corporations. Putin didn't attack Ukraine because corporate Russian lobbyist paid him to. In fact most Russian businesses, oligarchs and entrepreneurs got absolutely wrecked by Putin's idea to invade Ukraine, they never wanted this because they have more to lose from this. It's the government that fucks shit up for the people, not the corporations. Big corporations just dance to the tune the government plays.

schnitzelstoat 4mo ago

I'm cautiously optimistic. The Cloud and AI Development Act looks especially interesting: --- # Capacity * at least tripling the EU’s data centre capacity within the next 5–7 years; * simplifying and accelerating permitting and deployment of data centres; * improving access to key resources such as energy, land, water and financing; ensuring sufficient computing capacity to support AI, cloud services and data-intensive applications. --- Given the prevalence of 'degrowth' ideas here in the EU and the severe NIMBY problem (even with stuff as basic as housing let alone data centres), I'm somewhat sceptical they are going to be able to pull this off.

cryo32 4mo ago
Based on the Iran war situation I don't think we should be building more datacentres for security. They are easy targets. We should be concentrating on resilience and that means distributing capacity and capability where possible.
- johannes1234321 4mo ago
  For distributing having more data centers seems like a prerequisit to me. One can argue about size etc, though.
- dgellow 4mo ago
  You’re describing having a bunch of data centers in different location and enough redundancy. What makes you against data centers themselves? They are just a way to pool resources to benefit from economy of scale. They don’t have to be enormous
  - cryo32 4mo ago
    Centralised "economies of scale" mean consolidating risks into geographical and corporate ownership. I mean look at the current situation: that consolidation means there are a few corporate players, any of whom could just pull the plug on a huge amount of infrastructure in a war or other geopolitical mess. Also we have a layer of abstraction above the datacentre now which is the cloud provider. And that does not necessarily (especially in our case) have an economic advantage. And it is again a single point of failure. One cloud provider compromise and the scope of compromise is across multiple datacentres and businesses and potentially national governments. I'm suggesting bringing a lot of stuff back in house or within tens of thousands of small datacentres where there's a few racks max. And we keep our abstraction depth low. I'd go as far as designing things to be permanently disconnected or just occasionally connected these days. Even single-user stuff reaches into clouds and datacentres when it doesn't need to.

cryo32 4mo ago

I look forward to the day we have a sovereign CPU, RAM, storage, ancillary ICs, production line, supply chain, software stack and associated infra than I can walk into a shop and buy and use myself. I don't think it'll ever happen though. These initiatives are mostly fluff. Throw everything into AI because it's the current fad but not even look at stuff that runs everything RIGHT NOW. If anything was to happen war-wise, we'll be running everything on recycled trash.

soco 4mo ago
No true Scostsman, aye me lad. Now really, because big bang doesn't work, means nothing else should be even tried? Are you even from the EU to actually know, or just feel bothered by the anti-US sentiment oozing from those initiatives? If that helps, my feeling is that it's not anti-US, just a normal reaction to the acts and thoughts of the beloved best-leader-ever ruling the US right now, and his faithful elite. It's trying to protect oneselves, maybe a bit of rallying under the (blue) flag, and defeatism has no place in it.
- cryo32 4mo ago
  I'm in the UK. My partner is German. I spend a lot of time in the EU. It's really the "this is fine dog" realising that it's not fine and apathy and poor governmental and corporate decisions over the last 30 years have blown up in our faces.
whateverboat 4mo ago
We have now sovereign CPUs but we are struggling to get HPC ones. They will be there soon though in 5-6 years. RAM is already possible for Europe to manufacture if they can get the fab. Supply chain remains a question mark for the raw materials. Software stack is almost there. In effect, I would say we are around 60% there. The most important thing actually missing is Fabs. Everything else I see a straightforward path with money and time.
- fidotron 4mo ago
  HPC will always be years away. There is a big structural problem in Europe with these sort of initiatives: people receive grants for attacking identified problems; if you actually solve the problem then you have to find a new problem for your next grant, so it's best to not actually solve the problem but claim your next proposal will. Combine that by not actually wanting to reward people properly when problems are solved and you have the root of why eurotech has totally stagnated.

ofrzeta 4mo ago

Not sure what to make of this. There is also IPCEI-CIS https://www.8ra.com/ipcei-cis/ https://www.8ra.com/ipcei-cis/ but I can't see that in that strategy. Or it is buried somewhere deep. There's going to be a Open Source Policy and Ecosystem Forum on June 8 in Brussels https://events.linuxfoundation.org/open-source-policy-ecosystem-forum/ https://events.linuxfoundation.org/open-source-policy-ecosys...

BodyCulture 4mo ago
Funny how they are publishing free advertising for X, fb, yt etc. on their website. This is telling more about the situation than any speaker at the conference will be able to do.
- microtonal 4mo ago
  The world isn't built in a day. After years of nothing, the last few months a lot more EU bodies and even national politicians/officials have been joining Mastodon. It's certainly nowhere near the majority yet, but things are clearly moving.

eurosovereign 4mo ago

[flagged]

3997531578 4mo ago
[dead]

fermigier 4mo ago

Commentary (in French) from CNLL, the French Open Source Business Association: https://cnll.fr/news/strategie-open-source-europeenne-deux-reculs-significatifs/ https://cnll.fr/news/strategie-open-source-europeenne-deux-r... Here's a TL;DR in English: CNLL communiqué on the adopted EU Tech Sovereignty Package (3 June 2026) On 3 June 2026, the European Commission adopted the Tech Sovereignty Package — Communication, Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA) proposal, and EU Open Source Strategy. The CNLL confirms the essence of the historic shift it had welcomed in late May: open source is elevated to the rank of an instrument of European industrial policy. But the CNLL publicly regrets two significant setbacks introduced between the leaked draft and the adopted text: - "Open source first" (CADA Article 41) — the title is ambitious, the body is weak. The verb is "encourage", word for word the verb used by France's Digital Republic Law since 2016, with broad derogations ("security, total cost, and any other duly justified objective criterion") and no documented or auditable assessment requirement. The phrase "open source first" appears only in the article's title, not in its body. - "Public money, public code" (CADA Article 42) — reduced to a conditional cataloguing obligation: the article imposes nothing on the decision to release software, only on the mechanism when an entity discretionarily chooses to do so. The structural publication obligation that the European open source industry has defended for ten years is not in the CADA. Two further lexical softenings in the Communication: "key lever" became "crucially contributes"; "sovereignty-washing" was removed. The draft promised to go beyond the limit France has known since 2016 — the adopted text reproduces it at European scale. Confirmed acquis: the OSI definition is now anchored (incl. EUPL); APELL (the European Open Source Business Association) is named in the document; Open Source Maintenance Instrument with fork capability and security-mirroring programme are retained; envelope doubled from 1 to 2 B€ / 7 years (public + private); EuroStack cited in CADA IA study footnote. The CADA is still a proposal. The CNLL calls for industry and MEP mobilisation over the next twelve months on four priorities: (1) transform Article 41 into an enforceable obligation in the trilogue, with documented/auditable assessment of derogations, in convergence with European OSS editors signatories of the 3 June open letter; (2) mobilise the existing national legal acquis (Article 16 Digital Republic, Article L. 123-4-1 Code de l'éducation, Italian Article 68, German IT-Planungsrat, Dutch frameworks), which becomes proportionally more important; (3) defend the licence-based legal definition of OSS; (4) neutralise the practice of sovereignty washing — push enforceable jurisdictional immunity criteria (no CLOUD Act / FISA exposure) at the highest CADA sovereignty levels.

ainspotting 4mo ago

[flagged]

DeathArrow 4mo ago

Europe started going backwards from some time. Energy is becoming more expensive, raw materials are becoming more expensive, industry is thickening, jobs are closed, education is not ok, most important tech developments are happening elsewhere, we don't have a thriving startup environment, most large tech companies are established elsewhere. Maybe we will wake up at some point and do something. Discourses won't put foot on the table and won't help with economic competition.

Angostura 4mo ago
I mean, yes - if your biggest external source of energy declares war, and your hitherto trusted defence partner goes rogue - it's going to have a chilling effect and the measures needed to address that will hit both the economy and the populous
- RandomLensman 4mo ago
  Why would measures aiming to create more energy supply necessarily hit the economy and the populous?
  - AndrewDucker 4mo ago
    Losing a chunk of your energy supply, while simultaneously having to build a bunch of new energy supply, will hit the economy.
    - RandomLensman 4mo ago
      Yes, losing hurts, but building new supply would necessarily hurt why (instead of being accretive)?
      - AndrewDucker 4mo ago
        Because it will cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. If you have 300 froblets per month being shipped to you, and suddenly you have only 200 froblets arriving and you have to spend £5 billion building a froblet factory, then you're both going to be short on froblets and high on expenses at least until the factory is built. And yes, in the long run you'll have built the factory, will be getting a safer supply of froblets, and everything will be sunshine and roses, but while you're building it all that's an extra expense that you have to find the money for.

voxleone 4mo ago

[dead]

sixhobbits 4mo ago

[dead]

storus 4mo ago

OK, so a bunch of larger behind-the-times EU tech companies get a few billions over a few years. So what? If they were capable of executing before, they would have been competing already. Some bureaucrat is not going to conjure up desired qualities.

continueops_com 4mo ago

[flagged]