We are bringing event management in house for the first time used to rely on an agency for everything but we're taking back control this year.

Around 300 attendees, mix of employees, clients and partners, multiple breakout sessions to choose from and a gala dinner in the evening. Looking for sth that handles the full registration flow w/o. stitching 3 tools together.

What are you using?

Hello! I took a course at university on the technological rivalry between the US and China, particularly in the semiconductor industry. I found it really interesting, but we didn't explore the topic in much depth.

Now I have to write an essay on an issue in international relations, and I was thinking of focusing on the US-China chip war, but I'm not sure how to bring the EU into the discussion.

I know that the EU has a strategic advantage thanks to ASML, but I'm still struggling to identify what exactly I could argue or demonstrate in my essay. I also want to use this opportunity to learn new things. Unfortunately, I don't really have anyone at university to discuss this topic with in more depth, as the professor who taught the course was only here as a visiting professor on an exchange program.

Do you have any suggestions for interesting research directions I could explore? I'm particularly interested in geoeconomics, but I could really use some guidance in finding a clear research focus.

Thank you so much!

More and more European teams deploy agents to write their code, and with that use the problems of relying solely on a stochastic entity, as AI is, show clearly. Building systems this way exposes gaps in traceability and governance.

It is not about legislating more. That kind of limitation stifles the freedom that distinguishes Europe, the freedom that lets the ideas this continent is known for develop. It is about developing with control and in the open: a white box, with the rules enforced by code.

I built Actuarii, an open-source kit (Apache-2.0) that brings traceability and governance to what an agent writes. Today it works with Claude Code:

- you choose which paths of your repository to govern;

- before the agent writes one of them, it sends the exact change and its reason to a validator that runs outside the model; without a receipt for that exact change, the write is denied;

- each commit then says, for every governed file it changes, whether its content matches the recorded writes, and carries the agent's reasons.

What it is not: it is not a compliance tool, and v0.1 is not a security boundary against an agent that tries to get around it. Only writes to the paths you govern are recorded: what the agent does through Bash, or writes elsewhere, leaves no record. The README lists its limits, each one with an example.

- Scope of Governance: Should governance cover the full agent lifecycle (context reads, tool calls, execution) or focus strictly on state-modifying actions (file writes and commits)?

- Intervention Triggers: What specific agent actions or data access levels justify stopping for human approval?

- Approval Model: Would you prefer approving a technical specification upfront, or reviewing individual actions alongside their rationale?

Which approval model would change whether you actually use it?

https://github.com/AlexusPacicus/actuarii

On Wednesday, EU Member States approved a change to the GDPR that would put the profit-making interests of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and SpaceX over European's fundamental right to data protection. According to the approved text, processing personal data “in the context of AI” should automatically be lawful.

Every EU member state has to offer residents at least one free digital identity wallet by 24 December 2026. That part has been well covered, and the commission has already said not every country will be ready with a fully featured wallet by then.

The deadline that gets much less attention is the second one. Regulated sectors, which includes banks, insurers, telecoms, energy providers and large online platforms, have to accept the wallet as a means of identification roughly a year after member states start issuing them. That lands somewhere around late 2027.

So for a lot of firms this is not a roadmap decision at all. It is an obligation with a date attached, and the work to support it has to happen in a year when hardly anyone will be presenting a wallet yet. You build for a credential almost nobody holds, and the volume only arrives later.

The timing is the tricky part. The cost comes first and the usage follows later.

For anyone in a regulated sector, where does wallet acceptance actually sit on the plan right now? And is the blocker legal comfort, the integration work itself, or simply that nobody can point to enough users to justify the spend yet?

Cement and lime production are among the hardest industries to decarbonize. Could European tech be the key to electrifying heavy industry and accelerating the green transition?