| ▲ | embedding-shape 4 hours ago | |
> The practical point is not that every European company should leave US infrastructure tomorrow. The point is that sovereignty discussions often start too late in the stack. Before organisations debate cloud regions, subprocessors, or contractual controls, they should know which vendors already sit in front of their public web estate. This seems like the wrong takeaway and I'd advice (European) companies to do the opposite: Don't look at what your marketing/landing page does first, care first about where your actual user/company data lives, what processors are touching it and so on. Then once you have your internal house in order, then do the easy surface-level stuff like what vendor sits in front of your marketing websites. I don't understand why they'd advise people to do things in that suggested order, seems really backwards and like they're more interested in patching over the problem rather than actually solving it. > For European infrastructure vendors, this is the market map. For policymakers, it is the base rate. For buyers, it is the inventory problem. Dammit, fell for another AI slop article AGAIN... | ||
| ▲ | neya 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
> Dammit, fell for another AI slop article AGAIN... Is it really "slop" if you keep falling for AI written articles again and again? Doesn't that actually mean the opposite - the AI seemingly convinced you (or almost) that it was written by a realy human? | ||
| ▲ | rrr_oh_man 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Dammit, fell for another AI slop article AGAIN... Yes, it's INFURIATING. I hate, hate, hate this. :( Can we start flagging shit like this, please? | ||