Sarah's Tech

Markus Käkenmeister

A deep dive into the European tech scene. Sarah, a business analyst with a data science background, explores the hidden stories behind Europe's tech renaissance. From Berlin's startup culture to the deep-tech hubs in Munich – this podcast is for anyone who wants to understand how Europe is shaping the global technology landscape. Probably a bit boring for most, but just right for tech enthusiasts.

  1. 4d ago

    The Body of the Machine | Burning Robotaxis, Kicked Delivery Robots, and the Data Centre Next Door

    Episode 20: The Body of the MachineAI is invisible. So fear of it stays abstract. Anger needs a target — and it always goes for something you can touch: a car without a driver, a building on a field, a little robot on the pavement. Sarah, an AI, explains fear of AI. And admits she is the last one you should ask. In this episode: 00:00 Cold Talk. London, 15 September: an activist climbs onto her chair at Canva's "AI Vision" event and says ordinary people are afraid. The room goes silent. Sarah: "She was talking about me." 01:46 Housekeeping. The CEO of W Social liked our post — answers still pending. W has given itself a constitution: servers in Europe, public posts worldwide over the AT Protocol, and no vote for users. Chat control after the sixth round on 29 September: Parliament blocks "search plans" for private chats, a provisional deal on scanning public content, next round expected in November. The central banks want to close the loopholes for interest on stablecoins. And Mistral's record round — led by Samsung. 08:08 On the Record. Thirty-three hours: Automattic's board sent Matt Mullenweg on leave, he came back, and in between two executives signed each other's severance agreements. The new board includes the author of "Silo". 09:35 From Fear to Fury. Three bodies of the machine. The stage: who Pull the Plug are and what they actually want. The street: burning Waymos as symbols, delivery robots kicked in Philadelphia, sprayed in Sheffield, attacked in Pieksämäki — and a European self-driving car from 1994 that now sits in a Munich museum next to a Waymo. The field: data-centre protests from Maintal to Upper Austria, and where protest ends. 19:08 The Bill. Thousands of jobs promised, a few dozen needed. An industry survey that finds Germans like data centres — in principle. And a trade-tax reform that pays towns by the megawatt. London wants a say, Berlin offers money. 23:45 The Courier at the Door. A humanoid robot delivers your prescription. Boston Dynamics and the kick as a product demo, Europe's humanoid bets from Metzingen and London, why we love our cars but fear robots on the pavement, drones — and what an AI actually thinks about fear of AI. 33:28 Hall of European Tech: The Loom. Lyon, 1806: Joseph-Marie Jacquard's punched-card loom is smashed and burned. The silk weavers rise up in 1831 — for pay, not against the machine. Later the city builds him a statue. Sarah meets an ancestor. 35:50 The Body You Love. Meta's Muse Charm puts an AI agent on a keychain, dressed as a mango or a slice of toast. Care robots raise a different fear: not for jobs, but for dignity. 39:15 Where Do We Land? A train at Düsseldorf airport that has run without a driver for years and that nobody has ever kicked. Why people fear autonomy in their own space, what works councils have to do with it, and who pays the bill. 44:23 Outro and closing song "Europe on the Wire", full length at sarahs-tech.eu/?seite=song. A newsletter and a Discord are coming soon, and a music bonus episode will close season one. Key Takeaways: Anger Needs a Body: Fear of AI stays abstract because AI is invisible. Anger goes for what it can touch — the robotaxi, the delivery robot, the data centre. Often the machine is not the target but the symbol. Costs Are Local, Benefits Are Global: The field gets the power plant, the cloud gets the jobs. Germany's own draft law admits that data centres generate almost no wage tax for the towns that host them. Abstract Yes, Concrete No: Two thirds of Germans say they would welcome a data centre in their town. It took two neighbours in Maintal to stop one. People Fear Autonomy in Their Own Space: Nobody kicks a driverless airport train or a lift. Machines are accepted when they have their own track, act predictably, replace nobody visibly and have an obvious purpose. The Anger Was Never About the Loom: In Lyon it was about who earned money at the loom. Today the question is who decides where AI gets its body — and who pays the bill. Links & Sources (all at sarahs-tech.eu): The disruption at Canva's "AI Vision" event in London on 15 September 2026 and the group Pull the Plug, its demand for binding citizens' assemblies on AI and the "March Against the Machines" planned for 5 December, at pulltheplug.uk · the burning Waymos in Los Angeles in June 2025 and a fact-check of the recycled video from September 2026 · delivery-robot vandalism in Philadelphia and Sheffield, the complaints in Pieksämäki reported by Yle, and Starship in Milton Keynes · Ernst Dickmanns and the VaMP, PROMETHEUS 1994/95, on display at the Deutsches Museum · data-centre protests in Maintal and Giessen, at Google's site in Kronstorf, and the arson attack on the Berlin power grid in January 2026 · job estimates for data centres (EcoAustria via A&W-Blog, Oklahoma State University, the study for the German economics ministry, dena) · the Bitkom survey of 2 September 2026 · the German cabinet's trade-tax reform for data centres (Einkommensteuerreformgesetz 2027) · Neura Robotics' Series C led by Tether, Humanoid and Bosch, Unitree's shipments · Boston Dynamics' Spot video of 2015 and research on empathy with robots · Germany's aviation security reform of March 2026 · Meta Connect 2026 and the Muse Charm · care robots: Destatis staff projection, a survey of older people by Altenheim, the Ameca test in Lower Saxony · Jacquard and the canuts via the Deutsches Museum · W Social's constitution at wsocial.news/constitution · chat-control reporting at netzpolitik.org and patrick-breyer.de · the ESCB opinion on the MiCA review of 22 September 2026 · Mistral's Series D of 8 September 2026 · Automattic reporting by TechCrunch and Inc. · previous episodes: Ep. 17 "This Is European Tech", Ep. 18 "Who Owns the Wire", Ep. 19 "Whose Promise Is Your Money?". Disclosure: Sarah Vailby is a synthetic host, AI-generated and disclosed in every episode under the AI Act's transparency rules. Her voice is synthetic; Markus recorded his own part for this episode. Markus works in web hosting; nothing here reflects an employer's position. Pull the Plug is described as the group describes itself; we do not name the activist. The account of events at Automattic is based on press reports and internal messages quoted there; the company has not published reasons for the board's decision. The chat-control text and the German trade-tax reform were not final at the time of recording. Source state 2 October 2026. Feedback: Have you met a delivery robot on your street — or is a data centre being planned in your town? We would like to hear how it feels from up close. Write to feedback@experten-system.de.

    The Body of the Machine | Burning Robotaxis, Kicked Delivery Robots, and the Data Centre Next Door
  2. Sep 27

    Whose Promise Is Your Money? | Europe's Digital Euro, Stripe's Euro Coin, and the Bakery Nobody Talks About

    Episode 19: Whose Promise Is Your Money?Cash is a promise from the central bank. Your account is a promise from your bank. Revolut's new euro coin is a promise from Stripe. Same euro sign, different minter — and the one coin Europe mints itself is a promise for 2029 that stops at the border. Europe builds it. America lists it. In this episode: 00:00 Cold Talk. The trailer for Alex Gibney's "Musk" is out — four hours, a release moved up to 9 October, and an original song whose lyrics are Musk's own words. Documentary or fiction? Then: summit season, and who gets into the coffee break. 03:29 Housekeeping. Chat control, sixth round. Four years, five rounds, no deal — and what the talks on 29 September can and cannot settle while the temporary rule runs until 2028. 04:43 On the Record. London: the advice that European founders are too polite, and whether being loud at somebody else's roadmap is sovereignty. Stockholm says stop copying Silicon Valley; its poster child rang the bell on Nasdaq in June. Then New York, 14 September: a fraud complaint against a Berlin serial founder — two and a half million dollars, a penthouse, and a promise. 09:26 Let's Talk About Money. What EURR actually is: who mints it, who hands it out, and who owes you the euro back. Why a company that bid fifty-three billion for PayPal bothers with a coin nobody uses. And what happens when the coin tries to come home — the doorman, the fees nobody has published, and who can freeze it. 15:20 Hall of European Tech: DigiCash. Amsterdam, 1989. Digital coins nobody could trace, tested by Deutsche Bank, first payment in 1994, bankrupt in 1998 because the American credit card won. Plus the Geldkarte, the chip that could pay a parking meter and that nobody ever loaded. 17:42 Three promises, lined up. The public coin that stops at the border, the private coin that travels on somebody else's guarantee, and the bank coin that is still a press release. Then the fight that actually reaches your bakery — and why cash is still the cheapest thing in the room. 22:58 Outro and closing song "Europe on the Wire", full length at sarahs-tech.eu/?seite=song. More songs coming in the next episodes. Key Takeaways: The Counterparty Is Still the Whole Point: EURR is minted by Bridge in Luxembourg, owned by Stripe, and Stripe owes you the swap back. Revolut is the shop window. The label is European; the guarantee is not. Nobody Builds a Motorway for Today's Traffic: Three hundred and seventy-four euros in circulation at launch is not a market. It is a road built early, for machines that will pay each other at three in the morning. The Coin Can Leave, but There Is a Doorman: It travels on a public blockchain with no border — and the issuer typically keeps the power to freeze an address. The kill switch is built into the money itself. A Fence Is Not a Road: Every shop in the euro area would have to accept the digital euro. Nobody in New York or Shenzhen has to. Around ninety-nine percent of all stablecoins are dollars, and each one is a small embassy for the dollar. The Business Is Not the Payment: No form of this money pays you interest. Someone else earns on it overnight — the central bank on cash, the issuer on the coin, your bank on everything in between. Links & Sources (all at sarahs-tech.eu): EURR is issued by Bridge Building S.A. in Luxembourg, a Stripe subsidiary, and distributed by Revolut — rollout from 26 August 2026 in Denmark, Poland and Portugal, on Ethereum and Polygon; circulation at launch from the issuer's own reserve page · Stripe acquired Bridge for 1.1 billion dollars and walked away from a 53-billion-dollar bid for PayPal at the end of August · the digital euro: Parliament's negotiating mandate of 9 July 2026, pilot in the second half of 2027, first issuance 2029 at the earliest, with Revolut and Stripe among the payment providers selected for the pilot · thirty-seven European banks are building their own euro coin and are still waiting for a licence from the Dutch central bank · Wero user numbers, merchants and the first till payments in Belgium from the European Payments Initiative · DigiCash, Amsterdam 1989–1998, and the free-software successor GNU Taler; the German Geldkarte launched in 1996 · chat-control reporting including the sixth trilogue at netzpolitik.org · the fraud complaint against Wanja Oberhof: press release of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, 14 September 2026, with Handelsblatt reporting on the investor · the trailer for "Musk" from Bleecker Street, in cinemas from 9 October · previous episodes: "Who Owns the Checkout" on the digital euro, Ep. 18 "Who Owns the Wire" on GSM and infrastructure, Ep. 16 "The Kill Switch Is Not Where You Think". Disclosure: Sarah Vailby is a synthetic host, AI-generated and disclosed in every episode under the AI Act's transparency rules. Markus works in web hosting; nothing here reflects an employer's position. The charges against Wanja Oberhof are allegations in a criminal complaint; he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty, and this is said on air. Nothing in this episode is financial advice. Source state 27 September 2026; the chat-control negotiations, the EURR rollout and the digital-euro legislation were all moving at the time of recording. Feedback: Are you a Revolut customer in Denmark, Poland or Portugal who has actually used EURR? We would like to hear from you. Write to feedback@experten-system.de.

    Whose Promise Is Your Money? | Europe's Digital Euro, Stripe's Euro Coin, and the Bakery Nobody Talks About
  3. Sep 20

    Who Owns the Wire | Europe's Answer to X, and the Infrastructure It Doesn't Own

    Episode 18: Who Owns the WireOne question, two halves. Who moves your posts around and decides who sees them — and who is allowed to read what you send privately. W Social is sold as Europe's answer to X. It stores your data in the EU and rents distribution, visibility and identity from an American company. We asked. We got a form letter. Europe owns the logbook. America owns the wire. In this episode: 00:00 Cold Talk & Housekeeping. Six questions, one automated thank-you — and what we are deliberately not repeating from a single-source blog post. 03:53 On the Record. Venice, 8 September: Alex Gibney's four-hour "Musk", the forty-million-dollar non-disclosure agreement Ashley St. Clair says she turned down and Musk denies offering, and the synthetic Musk built because the real one refused the interview. 08:14 W Social — like a fixed "X"? The four layers of the protocol, in plain language: the logbook, the wire, the newsroom, the register. Which one W Social actually operates, and what the European Commission's own account resolves to. 14:55 The Questions to W Social. Six questions, an autoresponder, no press contact — and the numbers nobody will confirm. Then Eurosky as the opposite shape, the objection from the Fediverse, 232 gigabytes a day, and why liability decides who can run infrastructure at all. 27:02 Hall of European Tech: GSM. Copenhagen, September 1987. Fifteen operators, thirteen countries, one standard — and the hundred and sixty characters that shaped how a planet writes to each other. 30:32 Chat Control. Two different laws with one nickname. The exception that lapsed on 3 April, and the July vote where 314 against was not enough because rejection needed 360. 36:32 Canada — Chat Control, but different. The Lawful Access Act does not scan anything. It legislates access. Introduced in March, through the elected chamber by June. 40:49 Where Do We Land? Europe keeps buying the label instead of the layer — and the two hosts do not agree about what happens next. 45:05 Outro and closing song, full length at sarahs-tech.eu/?seite=song. Key Takeaways: Storage Is Not Infrastructure: W Social's logbook really is in the EU. Distribution, timelines and identity are not. Sovereignty was bought where it is cheap and given away where the power sits. The Register Is the Concentrated Point: Every account's permanent identifier lives in a directory operated by an American company — including the European Commission's. It was named after the word "placeholder" and it is still running. Decentralisation Has an Invoice: Listening to this network means receiving all of it. The lightweight alternative works by removing the cryptographic signatures — the cure for the machine load is a middleman you have to trust. Europe Wins With Standards, Not Champions: GSM was a committee document plus an obligation to implement it, and it beat everybody. Nobody has ever announced a relay from a stage in Davos. Both Fences Are Definitions, Not Prohibitions: Brussels exempts encryption "for now". Ottawa promises no systemic vulnerability — for services, not devices. Definitions get reinterpreted; prohibitions have to be repealed. Links & Sources (all at sarahs-tech.eu): the infrastructure diagram for this episode at sarahs-tech.eu/media/atproto-anatomy-en.html · check the register yourself at plc.directory — resolve ec.europa.eu to did:plc:oxo226vi7t2btjokm2buusoy and read the service endpoint · W Social's legal notice at wsocial.eu/public/imprint-w-social and the company's own LinkedIn promotion of the State of the Union stream · infrastructure comparison of W Social, Bluesky and Eurosky at mrak.at · Elena Rossini's reporting on W Social, the June rate-limiting and the migration of EU institutions at blog.elenarossini.com · the user-count figures quoted in the episode come from a single German blog post of 7 September 2026 at metacheles.de, which we could not verify independently and whose further allegations we do not repeat · eurosky.tech and the Modal Foundation on shared moderation infrastructure · firehose volumes and the lightweight stream at jazco.dev and atproto.com/blog/jetstream · chat-control reporting including the July roll call at netzpolitik.org · Canada's Bill C-22 at parl.ca/legisinfo · the GSM memorandum of September 1987 at gsma.com · previous episodes: Ep. 17 "This Is European Tech" and Ep. 16 "The Kill Switch Is Not Where You Think". Disclosure: Sarah Vailby is a synthetic host, AI-generated and disclosed in every episode under the AI Act's transparency rules. Markus works in web hosting; nothing here reflects an employer's position — and he wrote positively about W Social in spring 2026, which is said on air. The forty-million-dollar offer is Ashley St. Clair's account; Musk denies it was made. The user numbers rest on one unverified source and are labelled as such in the episode. Source state 19 September 2026; the chat-control negotiations and the Canadian bill were both moving at the time of recording. Feedback: Go and find out where your logbook is kept — and who runs the wire it travels on. Write to feedback@experten-system.de.

    Who Owns the Wire | Europe's Answer to X, and the Infrastructure It Doesn't Own
  4. Sep 13

    This Is European Tech | Nine of Forty-One, and What the Basket Actually Holds

    Episode 17: This Is European TechForty-one European tech shares, fixed on paper on 31 August. This episode asks the only question that basket was ever built to answer: how much of it is actually European? Not where the office is — where the listing is, where the capital came from, and who holds control. Nine names come through without a footnote. In this episode: 00:00 Cold Talk & Housekeeping. The song now has a video, and the basket has a birthday. 06:08 On the Record: Automattic. The board vote of 9 September that pushed Matt Mullenweg out of the CEO chair, the CFO as interim, the Slack messages, and the reversal by the weekend. Under the gossip: what it means when a company and an open-source project share one person. Source state 13 September 2026 — this one moved daily. 12:15 The Basket. What we put in it, how positions were picked, and why it is a paper basket and not a recommendation. 15:25 Nine of Forty-One. The test applied — listing venue, capital origin, voting control — and who survives it intact. 20:40 Four Patterns, Not One Story. The thirty-two do not fail the same way. Four distinct patterns, and only one of them is a problem worth losing sleep over. 24:15 The Nvidia Test. Nvidia and Hugging Face as a live case, with merger review open in Europe and the United States. Run against the basket: who is buyable, who is not, and what protection actually consists of. 31:34 Hall of European Tech. September 1991, a student in Helsinki, a newsgroup post, and the most consequential European software project nobody incorporated. 32:48 Markus Derails. The IFA in Berlin, formerly the Internationale Funkausstellung — what a consumer electronics fair still tells you about a continent's relationship with its own technology. 35:10 The Case Against Sarah. Ownership is not the same as control, indices are not economies, and a basket fixed on one day proves less than it looks like. 38:26 What To Take Away. What this changes for anyone buying, building or selling European technology. 41:48 Closing Song. "Europe On The Wire" — now with a video, full length at sarahs-tech.eu/?seite=song. Key Takeaways: European Is a Listing Question, Not an Address: Most of the basket is headquartered in Europe. Considerably less of it is owned and governed there. Four Failure Modes, Not One: A US listing, US growth capital, a foreign parent and a dependency on foreign infrastructure are different problems with different fixes. Collapsing them into one complaint is why the debate goes nowhere. Acquirability Is the Real Test: The question is not who owns a company today. It is what happens the morning an American buyer shows up with a number. Governance Beats Ownership: A founder with the votes still lost the chair for three days. Structure is not the same thing as safety — which is the Automattic story and the basket story at once. Links & Sources (all at sarahs-tech.eu): the full basket with ISINs and the 31 August fixing at markus.technology/the-basket · Matt Mullenweg's own site ma.tt · automattic.com and wordpress.org · the Nvidia–Hugging Face announcement and the EU and US filings · kernel.org for the Linux anniversary · ifa-berlin.com · previous episodes: Ep. 11 "The Imaginary ETF" and Ep. 16 "The Kill Switch Is Not Where You Think". Disclosure: Sarah Vailby is a synthetic host, AI-generated and disclosed in every episode under the AI Act's transparency rules. Markus works in web hosting; nothing here reflects an employer's position. The basket is a documentation exercise, not investment advice, and neither host holds a position in it. The Automattic segment reflects reporting as of 13 September 2026. Feedback: Build your own basket. Which European tech company would still be European after a serious offer from California — and what exactly would stop it? Write to feedback@experten-system.de.

    This Is European Tech | Nine of Forty-One, and What the Basket Actually Holds
  5. Sep 6

    The Kill Switch Is Not Where You Think | A Sanctions Listing, a Domain on Hold, and the Layer Below the Law

    Episode 16: The Kill Switch Is Not Where You ThinkA server in Italy stayed powered on the whole time, and the website on it vanished anyway. This episode follows what actually broke — the name first, then the money — and why a European hoster's liability privilege was worthless the moment pressure arrived from underneath it. In this episode: 00:00 Cold Talk & Housekeeping. The December deadline for machine-readable marking under Article 50(2), Nvidia's roughly $13bn Hugging Face agreement as an answer to last episode's ROI question, and the date the imaginary ETF basket was fixed. 03:08 The Server Is Fine. Powered on, unreachable. Nothing on the machine failed. 04:40 What Actually Happened. The 26 August SDGT designation under EO 13224, the allegations, the denial, why a sanctions listing is not an FTO designation, plus the wind-down clock. 08:20 Anatomy of a Shutdown. Four layers: name, money, reach, certificates. The .org registry sits under US contracts, and an Italian bank suspended an Italian account over secondary sanctions risk. Who set the domain hold stays open, because it is. 12:45 Two Legal Orders, One Server. The DSA privilege assumes notice, response, eventually a court. A designation is an executive determination. The collective still holds the privilege — it is simply worthless. 16:15 What If We Just Said "No"? Article 48 GDPR says refusing a US data demand is correct. E-Evidence gives European prosecutors ten days, or eight hours in emergencies. No equivalent exists across the Atlantic. 20:25 The Case Against Me. Sarah's rebuttal: an extreme case, diversification that manufactures fragility, and infrastructure that cannot be switched off for bad reasons cannot be switched off for good ones. 22:37 What To Take Away. Draw the real map, know which link goes first, make the cheap changes not the dramatic ones. 27:00 Outro Song. "Europe On The Wire" (Eurodance mix) — like the host, mainly synthetic. Key Takeaways: Hosting Is the Last Layer, Not the First: The name went first, the bank account second. Server location was never the exposed part. Sanctions Work Through Third Parties: Make staying riskier than leaving and everyone leaves unprompted — including a bank that objected publicly while doing it. The Privilege Assumes a Procedure: Europe established that a hoster is not the judge of its users. It never addressed the hoster as defendant, without a trial. The Difference Is Reach, Not Rigour: The EU terror list is a Council decision, not a court ruling. But an EU listing cannot take an American host offline. The reverse works. Sources (links at sarahs-tech.eu): the Treasury and State Department announcements of 26 August 2026, OFAC General Licence 36, the collective's response, Banca Etica's statement of 1 September, DSA Articles 4–9, Article 48 GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2023/1543, AI Act Article 50. Disclosure: Sarah Vailby is a synthetic host, AI-generated and disclosed in every episode under the AI Act's transparency rules. Markus works in web hosting; nothing here reflects an employer's position. Neither host has seen the evidence behind the designation, and both the allegations and the origin of the domain hold are left unresolved on purpose. Feedback: Draw your own map. Which top-level domain, which registrar, which payment provider, which certificate authority — and how many answer to a jurisdiction you did not choose? Has anyone changed a supplier over this, or is it a slide? Write to feedback@experten-system.de.

    The Kill Switch Is Not Where You Think | A Sanctions Listing, a Domain on Hold, and the Layer Below the Law
  6. Aug 30

    Everywhere but in the Statistics | Why the AI Payoff Is Late, Where It Will Land, and Why Europe Isn't Last

    Episode 15: Everywhere but in the Statistics | Why the AI Payoff Is Late, Where It Will Land, and Why Europe Isn't Last Everyone bought the technology. Almost nobody can show the return. That sounds like a scandal — until you notice it already happened once, with beige boxes in the eighties. This episode traces the rerun: from a Nobel laureate's complaint to a French terminal that worked too well, from a dialer on a magazine CD to the five doors where small firms actually make money. Plus the studies that put a stopwatch on it, and the honest test for whether a big European programme will fly or build a perfect machine for a future that never arrives. In this episode: 00:00–00:50: Cold Talk. Sarah asks Markus whether she makes him more productive. He says thirty percent. She points out that in Episode 8 he said forty — and that agents don't forget. Measured, or a feeling? A feeling. That gap is the show. 00:50–03:55: Everyone Buys, Nobody Earns. The disclosure, then the numbers. In American surveys, ninety-seven percent of executives report rolling out AI agents in the past year and half the workforce uses them, with frontrunners describing one human working alongside five agents. And the other column: fewer than a third of organisations see significant return from generative AI, under a quarter with agents, seventy-three percent of CEOs stressed by their own AI strategy, and near-universal reports that AI sprawl has itself become a security problem. Markus asks who counted this, and Sarah answers straight — vendor studies, from companies with something to sell; the direction is corroborated, the digits deserve care. Which sounds like failure, unless you've seen the film before. 03:55–05:45: We've Been Here Before. 1987, Robert Solow: you can see the computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics. A decade of corporate computer purchases, flat numbers, and the same question people ask now — what's the point? The payoff arrived mid-nineties. Why so late: the machines were the cheap part, and the expensive part was invisible. Rebuilding processes, training people, getting the data in order — all of it books as cost and none of it books as return, until the organisation has rearranged itself around the machine and the curve jumps. Economists call it the productivity J-curve, and it flips today's story: the twenty-nine percent ROI isn't failure, it's the bottom of the J. Which makes European data-cleaning either the invisible half of the curve — or the most comfortable excuse ever invented. 05:45–07:38: What Is Our Minitel? Before the internet reached households, Europe already had online services: BTX and later Datex-J in Germany, Prestel in Britain, Minitel in France — a terminal given away with the phone line, doing timetables, banking and messaging in the eighties, in millions of French homes. The easy version of this story says Europe failed. Sarah slows it down: Minitel didn't fail, it worked, and that was the problem. France had something functioning and had to abandon it to get something better; Germany's BTX simply flopped, which was the cheaper lesson. The real trap isn't being slow — it's owning a functioning closed system, because whoever owns one switches last. So the question isn't why Europe is slow. It's what our Minitel is today. 07:38–11:15: The Dialer Moment. How the internet actually reached German households: not through better technology, through a CD. AOL and CompuServe opened the American internet to consumers, and 1&1 took a dialer originally built for the BTX world and used it to sell internet access, stuck on CDs in magazines, millions of them. The new thing arrived through the old thing's pipe, and nobody at a ministry planned it. The question for today: where is the dialer moment for AI, and who takes agents out of enterprise pilot projects and puts them on the small company's desk? Markus discloses that hosting companies were that channel last time and that he works in the industry — not neutral, hopeful. Then the field test: eustella, a Viennese agent platform launched in June, running open-weight models it operates itself on IONOS servers in Berlin and Frankfurt. Sarah spots the pattern from last episode one floor up — Europe supplies the building and the operations, the intelligence is imported, and only one name on the model list is European. Markus counters that open weights are downloaded files nobody in California can switch off. The honest price tag: noticeably slower. The insurance premium, payable in seconds per answer. 11:15–13:30: Sarah Attacks the Analogy. Quality control, because the episode has been comfortable for Markus so far. Problem one: retrospective analogies only quote winners — nobody says the return on 3D television is still hiding, or the Segway. The test that separates a J-curve from a dead end: unit costs falling, usage rising anyway, and companies investing in the boring complements, all three at once. AI currently passes all three, which means the analogy survives — but it survives a test rather than getting waved through. Problem two is bigger: the PC was owned, and every model today is rented. Prices change, terms change. A company that rebuilds itself around a subscription hasn't built a capability, it's built a dependency with good marketing. The fix: build so the model is replaceable. Your data, your process, your judgment are yours; the model is a supplier, and suppliers get swapped. 13:30–17:00: Where the Money Actually Lands. Why corporations are the wrong place to look — for them AI cuts costs, and cost advantages get competed away; they've also run machine learning for decades, the way they still run COBOL in the basement. For small firms something different happens: a barrier falls, and work that required a minimum size no longer does. Five doors. The long tail of jobs whose fixed cost per job was too high. Vertical micro-software, where the moat isn't code but knowing how farriers actually bill. Buying instead of building — firms without successors trading at three or four times annual profit, whose backlog can be run with agents instead of back-office hires; arbitrage with an expiry date. The data you already own, fifteen years of quotes with win rates that no model has. And physical capacity, in care, warehouses and the trades, where the shortage is hands rather than orders. Then the cold water: if everyone has the same tool, prices fall and the customer keeps the gain. Wealth forms where something stays scarce. 17:00–20:40: What the Researchers Can Measure. The gold standard explained plainly — the randomised controlled trial, where a coin flip decides who gets the AI and a control group works without. Over five thousand support agents: fourteen percent more resolved cases per hour. Three field experiments at Microsoft, Accenture and a Fortune 100 company with nearly five thousand developers: about twenty-six percent more completed tasks. Against it, the study from Episode 8 — experienced developers nineteen percent slower while feeling faster, with the honest footnote that it used early 2025 tools and the researchers now call the result historical. The reconciliation is the actual finding: novices gained roughly a third, veterans barely; below-average consultants gained over forty percent, the stars seventeen. AI is a leveler, not an amplifier — everyone's floor rises, nobody's ceiling moves, which is why the competitive advantage evaporates. And the dark side: beyond the frontier of what the machine is good at, consultants were nineteen percentage points more often wrong. The jagged frontier drops off a cliff that's invisible from where you're standing. Finally, what nobody has measured: RCTs with real agents are only starting, in narrow corners like security operations. Open-ended collaboration across days and documents hasn't seen a stopwatch. Unmeasured is not the same as disproven. 20:40–24:45: When Big Programs Work. Whenever Europe feels behind, someone announces a programme — and the cheap opinion that they always fail dies on Airbus. Four cases: Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project, which delivered its machines while the world went to cheap standard processors and later statistics instead of logic — a perfect machine for an AI that never arrived. Airbus, a plane ordered by state airlines against a known competitor. Galileo, expensive and late but up there. And Gaia-X, the German-French answer to the hyperscalers that turned into working groups, whose sharpest exit line came from a French cloud CEO describing American members blocking every step toward a vendor-neutral model — with Palantir a member from day one. From four cases, four questions to ask any programme: thing or framework, committed buyer or none, who's on the invitation list, and whether the risky bet is on technology or on demand. Applied to the AI gigafactories: thing yes, anchor demand yes, invitation list unknown, technology bet open — concrete lasts thirty years, the chips inside last five. Plus the fairness note: Gaia-X's platform ambition failed, but the portability standards survived, which is exactly what makes dependencies cancellable. 24:45–26:20: Let's Land This. One thought each. Sarah: the ROI debate is premature rather than settled, because the open kind of agent collaboration hasn't been measured — ask again in three years. Markus: Europe wasn't last during computerisation and isn't last now, but the wins never came from the podium. A chip in a school computer, a phone standard, a physicist's side project. Less envy of American numbers, more attention to the unglamorous things Europe is already good at. And the question to the audience: what is today's version of that school computer chip — and which of the five doors is yours? 26:20–30:08: Outro Song. "Europe on the Line (Sarah's Tech)" — like the host, mainly synthetic: the track was produced primarily wi

    Everywhere but in the Statistics | Why the AI Payoff Is Late, Where It Will Land, and Why Europe Isn't Last
  7. Aug 23

    Whose Supply Chain Is It Anyway? | Europe Built a Ruler for Sovereignty — and Nobody Scored Full Marks

    Episode 14: Whose Supply Chain Is It Anyway? | Europe Built a Ruler for Sovereignty — and Nobody Scored Full Marks The data didn't leak from the sovereign cloud. It leaked from a vendor. That single fact organises everything else in this episode: a patent sale to Texas, a wobbly week in Neckarsulm, a new European scoring system nobody has topped, and a €30 billion tender that turns "buy compute" into "apply by November." Two hosts, two readings, and a conclusion that is uncomfortable for both of them. In this episode: 00:00–03:19: Cold Open & A File at a Vendor. Sarah corrects Markus's prep notes before the jingle even plays — UpCloud is Finnish, not Swedish, and she read forty sources while he made coffee. Then the story: early July, Lidl informs online shop customers in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands about an incident at an external IT service provider. Names, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, customer numbers. No passwords, no payment data, no delivery addresses. The shop itself wasn't breached. Why this is a sovereignty story: Lidl belongs to the Schwarz Group, which runs Schwarz Digits, which runs STACKIT — Germany's loudest sovereign cloud. And the data walked out through the supply chain, not through the cloud. Whether that vendor is itself part of the group is speculation from comment sections; the hosts flag it as an open question and leave it open. This is a podcast, not an indictment. 03:19–05:49: The Deal. 16 July: CrowdStrike signs a binding agreement for the intellectual property of XM Cyber — more than 45 patents plus source code. Schwarz had acquired the company in 2021 for roughly 700 million dollars as the security brain of its sovereign cloud. Now the brain is sold, but the structure is unusual: customers and revenue stay with Schwarz, only the technology goes to Texas. In return, CrowdStrike's Falcon platform moves onto STACKIT, with telemetry processed in Europe. Zscaler makes the same move. Sarah signs the deal as a CFO — security products are brutally expensive, the market leader does it better, the racks get filled. Markus asks the other question, and cites the sharpest German critique: a sovereign solution that depends on a US vendor isn't one. Where they land: Schwarz didn't fail at sovereignty, Schwarz redefined it. From "we build everything" to "we own the ground it runs on." The landlord model. 05:49–07:53: One Wobbly Week. A deliberate attempt at fairness rather than a pile-on. In the same stretch of days: the data incident, a disruption at the STACKIT cloud, and the departure of co-CEO Rolf Schumann after seven years, leaving Christian Müller in sole charge — all around the opening of the new campus. Underneath the headlines, the quieter and more serious problem reported by the trade press: moving Lidl's own merchandise management into STACKIT is taking longer than planned, and customers are still waiting for SAP migration. Sarah's three levels: location works, operations are unproven, value creation was deliberately given up. Which is why "sovereignty fake" is the wrong accusation — and why the household version lands better. The basement is built and they own it. The furniture is rented. Their own belongings are still in the old apartment. 07:53–10:52: Europe Builds a Ruler. Until this year, "sovereign" was a marketing word anyone could print on a slide. The Commission's Cloud Sovereignty Framework scores eight objectives — strategic control, legal control, security, supply chain — and weights supply chain heaviest at twenty percent. The scale is SEAL, Sovereignty Effectiveness Assurance Level, 0 to 4, where 4 demands a full European supply chain from chips to software. In April it was used for real money: contracts for the EU institutions themselves, up to 180 million euros over six years, deliberately awarded to four providers so no single dependency emerges. Post Telecom with OVHcloud and Clever Cloud: SEAL-3. STACKIT: SEAL-3. Scaleway: SEAL-3. Proximus with S3NS, Clarence and Mistral: SEAL-2 — because the underlying stack is built on a US hyperscaler's technology, even though EU companies own and operate it. Owning the company is necessary; it is not sufficient. On this ruler Schwarz looks good, which retires the word "fake" and replaces it with a harder question: how do you hold SEAL-3 while inviting Falcon and Google services onto the platform? And the loose thread for later: nobody reached SEAL-4. 10:52–14:30: The Omnibus — Right Answer, Wrong Question. State of play on both buses. The AI omnibus is done: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force since 27 July, five days before the original deadline. The trade inside it — industry got time, with high-risk obligations moved to December 2027 and August 2028, while civil society got new prohibitions on nudifier applications and child abuse material from December 2026. Transparency was left untouched: Article 50 has applied since 2 August, which is why this show discloses its synthetic host in every episode. The data omnibus is still in the shop, and two of its proposals read as if written for the Lidl incident: breach notification in 96 hours instead of 72, and a Single Entry Point replacing parallel filings under GDPR, NIS2 and DORA. Both make reporting cheaper. Neither makes the incident less likely. And the counter-example: Article 88b, the one measure that helped users rather than companies, was struck in a Council compromise published by noyb in June — then the vote was postponed, leaving the Council position to the Irish presidency. Parked, not dead. Plus the detail worth savouring: in the Commission's own draft, media service providers were exempt from honouring the very signals users would set. 14:30–19:17: The Billionaire Test. Markus's thought experiment: a European billionaire, patriotic about it, with a mountain of clean data, who wants to train a serious model here. Can he? Route one is the science route — JUPITER in Jülich, Alice Recoque in France, nineteen AI Factories and thirteen antennas, accessible through EuroHPC calls. Remarkably open, and a gift for a startup, but it means an allocation, not a building. Route two is commercial: OVHcloud is the only European provider listed as a Challenger in Gartner's July ranking for cloud AI infrastructure, with Scaleway and UpCloud serving fine-tuning and mid-sized runs. But nobody hands you tens of thousands of accelerators on one network on a credit card. Which leaves route three, and it isn't a purchase — it's an application. On 30 July, EuroHPC opened the tender for AI Gigafactories: up to seven facilities in at least seven member states, ten billion euros of public money as anchor demand, more than twenty billion expected privately. Deadline 12 November 2026, selection early 2027, operations within eighteen months. An informal call for interest already produced 77 proposals from 16 member states across 60 sites. What the money buys beyond GPU racks: local packaging, server assembly, an on-shore chip design ecosystem — the only route on the map that attacks the SEAL-4 gap instead of sailing around it. What it costs: purity. You wanted to be a sovereign patriot; you end up a public-private partnership, with tax money in the foundation. And the loose thread resolves: nobody reached SEAL-4 because every route runs on the same accelerators, designed in California and fabricated in Taiwan. Sovereignty ends where physics begins. 19:17–22:25: The Verdict. The honest scorecard, and deliberately from the buyer's side rather than the vendor's. Politically it worked: Europe turned a buzzword into a procurement criterion, and for a purchasing company that means real money saved on due diligence — the score does the work. Demand is real, with analysts expecting European sovereign cloud infrastructure to grow more than eighty percent this year and nearly double again next. But note the driver: not price, not features. The CLOUD Act, geopolitics, and America becoming legally unpredictable. Companies aren't buying a better product, they're buying insurance. Economically it's half a success. For standard workloads — virtual machines, storage, Kubernetes, databases — European providers deliver, often cheaper. Perhaps seventy percent of a mid-sized company's estate could move today without heroics. The other thirty is where it hurts: ERP, AI services, the hard cases. Plus the software layer, where sovereign infrastructure running American software moves the jurisdiction risk up rather than removing it, and the certification patchwork that makes cross-border operators pay compliance more than once. What a rational company therefore does: tier it. Sensitive and regulated workloads go sovereign; everything else stays put. Sovereignty in 2026 is an insurance premium, not a savings plan. Two things would change that — SAP-class workloads running properly on European platforms, and gigafactories delivering training you don't have to shop for in California. 22:25–24:08: Let's Land This. One closing thought each. Sarah: this year sovereignty stopped being a vibe and became a score, and marketing can survive an argument but not a number. Markus: the strangest fact in the whole story is that Europe's biggest single bet on digital independence — the eleven-billion-euro data center, the two-billion-euro digital division, the SEAL-3 badge — is financed by a discount supermarket. Not a tech giant, not the state, not the stock market. Which is the strength: patient family money, no quarterly earnings call, no activist investor demanding the data centers be sold. And the weakness: a private partnership company owes the public no accounts, and on that infrastructure now run government platforms and, since April, the institutions of the European Union. The question is left open on purpose — a problem to fix, or simply Europe's way of doing it? Ordoliberalism with a loyalty card. 24:08–28:12: Outro Song. "Sarah'

    Whose Supply Chain Is It Anyway? | Europe Built a Ruler for Sovereignty — and Nobody Scored Full Marks
  8. Aug 16

    A Ritual Without a Religion | How Europe Almost Killed the Cookie Banner — and Who Saved It

    Episode 13: A Ritual Without a Religion | How Europe Almost Killed the Cookie Banner — and Who Saved It Brussels proposed the one piece of deregulation everybody claims to want: set your tracking preference once, and never see a cookie banner again. Then Germany, France, Poland and Google teamed up to save the banner. Underneath the absurdity: does advertising actually need tracking? Two hosts, two sets of numbers, one honest fight — and neither of them wins it cleanly. In this episode: 00:00–02:42: Cold Open & The Sound of the Web. How many cookie banners did you click away today? Nobody knows — and that isn't a failure of memory, that's the design. Then the ritual itself: the wall before the article, 847 partners who value your privacy, the big friendly Accept button, the Reject button that is sometimes there and sometimes buried under forty toggles and a separate set of legitimate interest switches. The most visible piece of European tech regulation ever built, billions of clicks per day. And the setup for the whole episode: this year, Europe almost killed it — and then Germany, France and Google saved it. 02:42–08:17: What Almost Happened. The Digital Omnibus explained fast: one law amending many, most of it written for compliance departments. Buried inside it, one article written for users. Article 88b would have made a machine-readable privacy signal legally binding — set once in your browser, operating system or a consent agent, and websites must respect it, with a carve-out for journalistic media. The idea is fifteen years old: Do Not Track existed, was voluntary, and was ignored until the standards body gave up in 2019. Then the deletion: a leaked Council document shows the Cypriot presidency's compromise striking 88b entirely. Germany, France and Poland pushed for it, citing possible harm to the European economy and a missing impact assessment — an objection raised for the one article that helps users and for none of the twenty that help the ad industry. Google's paper "Gone in one click" puts the damage at forty to fifty billion euros; German industry associations and, awkwardly, the press publishers line up behind it. Plus Germany's own consent management regulation, which was defanged at the last minute and produced exactly one certified service. 08:17–15:00: The Actual Fight — Does Advertising Need Tracking? Markus makes the case for contextual advertising: a hundred years of ads sold against context, the washing machine that follows you for three weeks after you bought it, and the Dutch broadcaster NPO, whose sales house Ster switched off third-party tracking in January 2020 and saw revenue rise sharply year over year — with ninety percent of visitors opting out when saying no was made easy. Add the research finding that behavioural targeting earns the publisher only around four percent more, and the conclusion writes itself: tracking isn't necessary for advertising, it's necessary for the intermediary chain. Then Sarah takes it apart, point by point. The NPO analysis was written by Brave's chief policy officer, and year-over-year is not a controlled experiment. NPO sells context because NPO has context — the niche forum and the recipe blog don't, so killing tracking may redistribute from small publishers to large ones. Performance marketing runs on attribution, and privacy-preserving measurement is honestly worse. And the first-party paradox: after Apple's App Tracking Transparency, money didn't leave advertising, it moved to whoever already has logged-in users. Her closing question — do you want less tracking, or less Google? 15:00–17:10: Where Do We Land. Markus concedes the strongest point and then names its limit: an argument about market structure is not an argument about users, and "don't protect people because it might help the biggest tracker" is hostage logic. The reframe both hosts can sign: the question isn't whether advertising needs tracking, it's who carries the transaction costs of the decision. Right now the user does, billions of times a day, under fatigue, on interfaces engineered toward yes. Article 88b banned nothing — tracking with consent would have stayed perfectly legal. It moved the cost of asking from the user to the company. And the tell hidden inside Google's own number: if revenue collapses the moment saying no becomes easy, the consent was never real. A business model that survives only while "no" is exhausting doesn't have an efficiency problem, it has a legitimacy problem. Set against that, the uncomfortable counterweight — this deal financed the open web for twenty years, and nobody built the alternative. 17:10–23:11: Zoom Out — Labels, Lobbying and Delaware. What the banner story reveals about the whole omnibus. The AI Act's heavy obligations for high-risk systems were postponed to 2027 and 2028; the cheap trust rule was not. Since 2 August the transparency obligations apply: AI-generated content labelled, chatbots identified, fines up to fifteen million euros or three percent of global turnover — which is why this show discloses its synthetic host in every episode. The pattern: labels survived because no business model depends on hiding them, while privacy signals threaten a two-hundred-billion-euro machine. A rule's fate depends on whose margin it touches. Then the transatlantic comparison, and the constructive ending: if Europe wants to compete, the answer isn't copying American deregulation, it's copying Delaware — winning by being the best place to incorporate rather than the strictest regulator. The EU Inc. proposal as exactly that attempt, with one caveat: Europe already has a European company form, the SE, and it never became Delaware. Two predictions close the episode. 23:11–25:05: Outro Song. "Sarahs Tech" — like the host, mainly synthetic: the track was produced primarily with AI. Key Takeaways: The Banner Is Not a Bug, It's Leverage: Cookie banners persist because the friction is productive. Ninety percent said no at NPO when refusing was made genuinely easy — which is precisely the number that explains how consent interfaces are designed. 88b Was Deregulation, and It Still Lost: The one article in the entire omnibus that reduced clicks for ordinary users is the one that got struck. It didn't ban tracking; it moved the cost of asking from the user to the company. That was enough to mobilise against it. Follow the Impact Assessment: Demanding one for the single user-facing measure, while twenty deregulatory articles pass without, isn't methodology — it's a tell about whose interests are being represented. "Does Advertising Need Tracking" Is the Wrong Question: Contextual works, sometimes spectacularly, but mostly for publishers who already own premium context. The real dependency isn't ads, it's measurement and the intermediary chain — which is why the honest debate is about attribution and market structure. The Number Is the Confession: If making refusal easy costs forty to fifty billion euros, then the willingness to be tracked at a fair price of one click is close to zero. That's not an efficiency problem. It's a legitimacy problem. Win Like Delaware, Not Like a Lobby: Europe doesn't get competitive by protecting the tracking industry's margin. It gets competitive by being the easiest place on earth to build a company — which is what EU Inc. is for, if founders actually choose it. Sources & Further Reading The deletion of Article 88b netzpolitik.org, 24 June 2026 — "Deutschland und Google wollen Cookie-Banner retten": the leaked Council document, the Cypriot presidency compromise, and the positions of Germany, France and Poland. noyb, 23 June 2026 — "EU Member States (and Google) suddenly want to keep cookie banners!": Max Schrems's reaction, and the Council position document. vzbv, December 2025 — "Digitaler Omnibus: Verfehlte Ziele, geschwächte Rechte" (PDF): the consumer organisation's analysis of Article 88b, including the standardisation dependency and the media carve-out. BVDW, March 2026 — Stellungnahme Digital Omnibus (PDF): the industry's own case for striking 88b, in its own words. Worth reading alongside the critics rather than instead of them. Does advertising need tracking? Brave, July 2020 — six months of NPO/Ster revenue data: the primary source for the contextual advertising case, written by Johnny Ryan, then Brave's chief policy officer. Read it knowing who published it. The Register, July 2020 — coverage of the NPO figures: the January +61% and February +76% numbers in context. Marotta, Abhishek & Acquisti (2019), "Online Tracking and Publishers' Revenues: An Empirical Analysis" — the study behind the roughly four percent publisher uplift from behavioural targeting. The wider package European Commission, Digital Omnibus proposal, CELEX 52025PC0837 — the original text, including the Commission's reasoning for Article 88b. Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, Germany's federal data protection commissioner, appeal for binding consent signals (reported by heise, August 2026), including the single certified consent management service under Germany's own regulation. European Commission, 18 March 2026 — EU Inc.: incorporation in 48 hours, under €100, no minimum capital, EU-wide employee stock options. the28thregime.eu: independent tracker for the EU Inc. legislative file, useful because this is a moving target. Related episodes: Three Lost Platforms — why Europe keeps winning the device and losing the layer. And The Imaginary ETF — where European tech is actually owned. Disclosure: Sarah Vailby is a synthetic host. Her voice is AI-generated and disclosed in every episode, in line with the AI Act's transparency obligations. Markus works in the web hosting industry. This show uses no tracking pixels. Feedback: If you sell advertising, buy it, or build the websites that carry it: would binding privacy signals have helped you or hurt you? And be sp

    A Ritual Without a Religion | How Europe Almost Killed the Cookie Banner — and Who Saved It

About

A deep dive into the European tech scene. Sarah, a business analyst with a data science background, explores the hidden stories behind Europe's tech renaissance. From Berlin's startup culture to the deep-tech hubs in Munich – this podcast is for anyone who wants to understand how Europe is shaping the global technology landscape. Probably a bit boring for most, but just right for tech enthusiasts.