At the roof of the world, Europe laid its crown.

Still think of the film crew of swiss nationalist that were at the European parliament in Straßburg doing a video with an expensive camera dressed as braunhemden never was able to find them. "Defendswiss" or something was on their shirt. Very professional for a group that doesn't have any online presence.

“We're part of the New World Order 51st state is bad, but 28th EU country is good Palestine is sovereign but not Alberta”

Tomorrow at 22:00 Isar will launch their first test-flight of Spectrum with a payload intended for Space! The mission carries five CubeSats and one experiment and aims to validate the vehicle’s critical systems under operational conditions. The EU's Space Renaissance 🇪🇺🚀

Ten trillion to limes lab now

Finally, a comment correctly naming the issues! Without a Capital Markets Union, 27 fragmented markets have no chance to properly fund frontier tech. Our startups can't fund themselves as the US or the Chinese ones can. AI/frontier tech is a funding game.

After the Anthropic situation, one thing feels clear to me. Europe needs digital independence. AI is becoming infrastructure. If access to advanced models can change overnight because of foreign decisions, Europe cannot stay only as a customer. We have talent, universities, researchers, founders, open source communities, and public compute. But we need coordination, capital, and people willing to build. That is why I started Limes Labs. It is early. We are not claiming capability yet. We are organizing capability. Open source. Open weights. European AI sovereignty. If you are a researcher, engineer, designer, founder, investor, student, institution, or journalist, join us. Europe has crossed the Rubicon. Now Europe must build. limeslabs.eu

The US is achieving levels of growth that leave Europe in the dust. If it doesn't change track soon the EU will lose its status as the world's pre-eminent regulatory superpower.

Lots of people with lots of opinions today, zero people deciding to do something

-1. Create a European national security and intelligence agency

how can you be serious about european competitiveness and then oppose this, like come on

Everytime the trump admin initiates a tarrif or blocks access to SOTA in Europe, we sell one EUV machine to China

We are targeting NET 15 June to launch Mission 'Onward and Upward' during the available launch window opening at 8:00 pm UTC (10:00 pm CEST), subject to weather, safety, and range infrastructure. Follow the launch live: youtube.com/live/Ss1DUqLjecc

Americans even out regulate Europe now, what do we still have left 😔

should i complain that the USA is behind in adding new memberstates, like get on europe's level of constantly adding memberstates wide build

bought Mistral Pro and it is making a game for me

You won't believe what I'm about to tell you...

i really really think at all costs we should open the groningen gas fields again. i need to know who specifically decided it was a good idea to close it, instead of any other solution. however it was joint ventured and fully owned by Shell and Exxonmobil, now two foreign entities, of which one is american.

"Brussels is NOT our friend. Brussels is our Enemy. Brussels wants to take away National Sovereignty of the Nations of Europe."

him speeching in french is so eurobased, i welcome canada to europe. the last bastion of freedom in the world.

Great article! Must read. It triggered some reflections on the game theory behind 🇪🇺European integration. Beyond the specific topic of the North Sea Power Plant, the article highlights what is, in many sectors, a recurring pattern in the EU: a coordination game that would be beneficial, potentially allowing lower costs, greater security, and higher payoffs overall, but that struggles to materialize because of governance issues. In other words, there is a lack of the institutions, rules, or even informal compromises that make the necessary trade-offs and their respective gains visible, acceptable, and achievable for all parties involved. This is highly instructive and one of the pillars of game theory applied to European integration. To better understand how it works, consider a textbook example: the adoption of the telephone at the beginning of the XX century. In a city where nobody yet owns a telephone, each citizen reasons as follows: ">Buying a telephone costs money, installing it takes time, and learning how to use it is a hassle. >If I'm the only one who has one, it is practically useless. >Therefore, I refuse to adopt." From an individual perspective, the decision is rational. Yet there is an alternative equilibrium: everyone buys a telephone. At that point, everyone can communicate rapidly, the value for each individual far exceeds the initial cost, and so on. In practice, this second equilibrium produces a higher payoff for everyone. The problem is that players clearly see the immediate cost ("I have to spend money and time"), while they struggle to perceive the emerging collective benefit ("I will gain access to a network of thousands of people"). In game theoretic terms, they are stuck in an inferior equilibrium because the payoff of the coordination game depends on the simultaneous choices of others. Now let us introduce a new element: a telephone company that installs telephones free of charge for the first 10,000 users and publicly demonstrates a functioning network (or a software company that operates at a loss for years to spread adoption of its product, the standard Silicon Valley strategy). This radically changes the perception of the game. Previously, the citizen saw a certain cost today and an uncertain benefit tomorrow. Now they see almost no cost today and concrete proof that others are joining. [NB: The company has not changed the final payoff of the coordination game; it has changed the players' ability to see and believe in the high-payoff equilibrium.] In many historical cases, the role of institutions, entrepreneurs, platforms, or political leaders is precisely this: making visible a coordinated equilibrium that already existed in theory but that players could not imagine as realistically attainable. Of course, we see the same dynamic in the construction of EU integration, so much so that one could view the entire process of European integration as a single coordination game of historical proportions. But take the Single Market: each state clearly sees what it must concede: trade openness, common standards, limitations on certain national policies. These are immediately observable costs. Much harder to visualize is the emerging payoff of a market of hundreds of millions of people, with integrated value chains, greater investment, and stronger global bargaining power. For this reason, political debate often focuses on the sacrifices required by coordination rather than on the surplus generated by the coordinated equilibrium, across all sectors, from the common currency to the construction of a power plant in the North Sea. As @POTFES notes, the element that can unlock the game is the presence of one or more mechanisms that make the future payoff credible and tangible: common institutions, pilot projects, guarantees, compensation mechanisms that facilitate compromise, concrete examples of success, etc. Coordination games, and this is particularly clear in Europe, do not fail because the cooperative payoff is too low, but because the cooperative payoff is too distant, abstract, or uncertain relative to the immediately visible costs that the compromises of cooperation require. Uncertainty about the detailed distribution of future costs and gains is the hidden cost that slows integration and pushes states to focus on short-term equilibria. The most efficient and effective form of institutional innovation often consists of making the future sufficiently visible to coordinate expectations in the present, not by forcing outcomes that would not otherwise emerge, but by building the mechanisms that allow their full realization.