[embedding-shape]

> 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...

[tgv]

> Don't look at what your marketing/landing page does first

True. Also: the landing page and all the other corporate boasting are often run by a marketeer or similar, who knows nothing about the technical part. They just have a design, and outsource implementation. So it just ends up somewhere.

[neya]

> 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?

[snackbroken]

LLM text is like an optical illusion for the language part of your brain, only instead of the payoff being "Oh, cool! The dots aren't actually moving!" it's "Oh, 'cool'. You weren't actually trying to tell me anything worth my time."

[embedding-shape]

Yes, because it sounds reasonable at the beginning, then the further you go, the less sense it makes. Ultimately you look up the stuff that felt weird initially, and found the reason why it sounded so weird.

If I never actually noticed it, it wouldn't be slop, that I'd agree with. But in this case, I did notice, so it is slop.

[jurgenburgen]

They pointed out that the article is suggesting a completely wrong solution.

If the article was written by a human it would be valuable feedback for the author. Because the article was written by a LLM it was just the commenter being tricked to be engaged by generated noise.

[rrr_oh_man]

> 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?