Peer Stritzinger @peerstr

📌 The 7th RESCALE Plenary Meeting took place in Milan, Italy, on 22–23 September 2026, hosted by INFOCERT (ICERT). 🔗 Read more about the final plenary meeting here: rescale-project.eu/rescale-7th-pl… #RESCALE #HorizonEU #PlenaryMeeting

Endlich wieder Tankrabatt, das war ja erst zweimal eine extrem dumme Idee

Europe overcame the launcher crisis. But now we face the next, maybe even bigger challenge. In the next ten years, an expected 50,000 satellites will be launched into space worldwide. For defence. For the economy. For mega constellations. ⬇️1/6

[Nerves] [Announcing] GRiSP - running Elixir on bare metal forum.elixirforum.com/t/76786 #NervesProject #ElixirLang #MyElixirStatus

The loudest voices stoking fears about AI dangers have made tremendous headway in the past two weeks. AI technology has not taken some unexpected, dangerous turn, but the hype around it — propelled by what appears to be a well orchestrated PR campaign — has drummed up considerable fear. I worry that it represents a setback for our field. I have written frequently that fears of AI are overhyped. AI’s capabilities can be uncannily human-like and unpredictable, and it’s rational to worry when people who are directly involved express concerns. But I see the problems as a sign of the engineering work that ahead, rather than insurmountable barriers or the sky falling. AI technology continues to advance — which is a good thing! — but technical advances, poorly understood by the public, give those who seek to generate hype repeated opportunities to do so. First, I don’t see any step up in the risk of human extinction from AI compared to a few months ago. The theories about this remain the same fantastical, science fiction scenarios as a few months ago. The biggest change in AI risk is its cybersecurity capabilities — a topic which we should take seriously — but this, too, will not lead to the end of the world. The most notable recent event leading to increased fear was when an OpenAI team deployed an agent swarm that hacked into Hugging Face. Much of the popular press contained significant hype. For example, some publications reported that a swarm of 1,200 agents carried out the attack. While this was technically accurate, as I write this, I have about 1,300 processes running on my laptop. Yes, the ability to get large swarms of agents to work in parallel on a task is a significant technical advance, And, in computing, many processes run at the same time. So this shouldn’t be seen as some magical capability. Additionally, OpenAI’s buggy sandboxing and monitoring processes were key to enabling this incident. Fixing these bugs and putting in place improved monitoring would be appropriate fixes, not pausing AI. There are many well known ways to attack software systems. The main advantage of AI agents is that they are relentless. They will tirelessly try many tactics — and have the patience to chain vulnerabilities together — that previously would have taken an infeasible amount of human effort. But in the long term, I believe the advantage will lie with defenders (because they have more information with which to identify bugs, which they can fix), but the cyber-threat landscape has changed significantly. There are still bottlenecks to identifying and exploiting a vulnerability. AI agents still have to try a lot of things to see what works, and taking these actions takes time and might be detected by defenders. This is why, even though it is now easy to obtain versions of leading open weight models that have had their guardrails removed or weakened, so they will not refuse to try to execute cyber attacks, the world has not ended. I am also concerned about the anthropomorphization of AI in a lot of reporting, where LLMs and agents are unnecessarily treated as if they were people. If I wield a hammer, miss a nail, and accidentally dent the wall, it’s not the fault of the hammer. The problem lies in how I used the hammer. Similarly, if I prompt an agent and it hacks into someone else’s system, the responsibility lies with me, not the agent. Of course, we want to build systems that are as safe and predictable as possible. (For example, an unsafe hammer would be one whose head randomly flies off under normal use.) Today’s agentic systems are not predictable, but I see no reason why, by applying sound engineering practices, we won’t be able to make them extremely safe to use. One new element in the forecasts of AI-enabled doom is AI companies disclaiming responsibility for their own products. “I didn’t do it; my out-of-control agent did!” There’s a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the tool maker and the tool user, but when something goes wrong, let’s hold the people building and/or using the hammer responsible, rather than the hammer. (By the way, if you’re worried about AI bioweapon risk, David Bellamy has a great post on why this, too, is overhyped. Briefly, the bottleneck in building a bioweapon is not intelligence, but lab work and manufacturing.) Pausing AI progress will create much more harm than benefit. First, our adversaries will certainly not slow down. Second, engineering requires discovering problems empirically so we can fix them. If we pause AI by a decade, we will also delay finding and implementing safety engineering fixes by about the same duration. Of course, the incentive to stoke fears — for regulatory capture, to garner attention, or to make one’s technology seem more powerful — remains the same as before. Disclaiming responsibility is a new one. Taking a hard technical look at the actual risks however, I see little factual basis for the degree of fear that’s been stoked up. We still have hard research and engineering work ahead to improve AI safety, but the beneficial applications continue to vastly outweigh the risks, and we should keep building. [Original text (with links): deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issu… ]

Man hätte den ausgleichenden #Merkel-Kurs nicht für gescheitert erklären, sondern ihn durch progressive Reformen aus der Mitte heraus weiterentwickeln können. Ein solcher Kurs wäre etwa mit Wüst zumindest denkbar gewesen. Stattdessen hat sich unter Merz der wirtschaftsliberale und gesellschaftspolitisch konservative Flügel durchgesetzt und verkauft nun als notwendige „Reformen“ eine Politik, deren materielle Vorteile sich überproportional bei höheren Einkommen konzentrieren, während von breiten Teilen der Bevölkerung vor allem Verzicht und Anpassung verlangt werden. Umso eigentümlicher ist die Verwunderung über eine linke Gegenbewegung. Politische Pendelbewegungen entstehen nicht im luftleeren Raum. Wenn eine Volkspartei die gesellschaftliche Mitte zunehmend über Abgrenzung, Härte und ökonomische Zumutungen definiert, schafft sie zwangsläufig Nachfrage nach einem Gegenangebot: nach stärkerer Umverteilung, mehr staatlicher Absicherung und einer progressiveren Gesellschaftspolitik. Man muss dieses Gegenangebot weder teilen noch seine radikalen Ausprägungen verharmlosen. Aber man sollte begreifen, dass es auch eine Reaktion auf die Verschiebung dessen ist, was zuvor als politische Mitte galt. Wer diese Verschiebung selbst betreibt und anschließend über die Polarisierung auf der anderen Seite klagt, macht es sich analytisch bemerkenswert einfach.

Dieses Statement zeigt die gesamte Verlogenheit derjenigen die Technologieoffenheit gepredigt haben und es noch immer tun. Der Staat soll immer dann helfen wenn die "eigene " Technologie" den Bach runtergeht. Ansonsten wird das Lied der Freiheit gesungen. In Europa gibt es nur einen Weg: die totale Elektrifizierung in allen Bereichen. Nur so kann unser Wohlstand erhalten werden und die Buerger vor Unwaegbarkeiten von ausserhalb Europa geschuetzt werden.

Ich als »(E-)Autofahrer« werde überhaupt nicht entlastet. Auch nicht »alle« Pendlerinnen. Nur die mit der rückschrittlichen Technologie. Und entlastet werden vor allem die Fossilkonzerne, die daran arbeiten die Menschheit zu töten und vorher noch maximal Profit mitzunehmen.

@

57 years ago

0 0 0 0 0

Dass 𝗗𝗲𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱's Stromnetze deutlich mehr Solarstrom aufnehmen können als bislang angenommen, verdeutlicht den zentralen Hebel für die Energiewende: Batterien sind nicht bloß eine Ergänzung zur Photovoltaik, sondern die entscheidende Infrastrukturbrücke unseres Stromsystems. Wenn das Ausbaupotenzial durch den gezielten Speichereinsatz massiv gesteigert werden kann, liegt das Nadelöhr nicht vorrangig im schleppenden Trassenausbau, sondern im Mangel an systemischer Flexibilität. Ein 𝗴𝗲𝘀𝗮𝗺𝘁𝗴𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗭𝗶𝗲𝗹 muss daher darauf ausgerichtet sein, Erzeugungsspitzen nicht länger teuer abzuregeln, sondern über Peak Shaving direkt auf Verteilnetzebene abzufangen. Der systematische Aufbau von Groß-, Gewerbe- und Quartierspeichern senkt die enormen Kosten für den netzstabilisierenden Redispatch drastisch und entlastet Haushalte wie Industrie bei den Netzentgelten. Anstatt Jahre auf neue Leitungen zu warten, steigert die lokale Zwischenspeicherung die Effizienz der bestehenden Netze unmittelbar. Damit diese Transformation gelingt, müssen die regulatorischen Rahmenbedingungen konsequent ausgerichtet werden: die vollständige Befreiung von doppelten Abgaben, klare Anreize für netzdienliches Ein- und Ausspeisen sowie ein flächendeckender Rollout dynamischer Tarife. Erst wenn #Batteriespeicher als tragende Säule der Energieinfrastruktur verankert werden, entfaltet der Solarausbau sein volles wirtschaftliches Potenzial. n-tv.de/wissen/Batteri…

Jeder Radfahrer, jeder ÖPNV-Fahrer, jeder Bahnfahrer, jeder E-Auto-Fahrer zahlt also jetzt für Diesel-Dieter, für Benzin-Bernd, für die Villen und Yachten und Privatflugzeuge der Fossilindustrie? Danke Friedrich Merz, du Genie 🥳

Einer der besten Takes des Postillon. der-postillon.com/2026/05/tankra…

If you're unhappy with the code your agent produces, you might be using the wrong agent, or the wrong model, or the wrong version of the model, or the wrong combination of models, or the effort is too high, or the effort is too low, or you're missing some skills, or you have too many skills, or your prompt is not specific enough, or your prompt is too detailed. If none of these tweaks, or a combination of them, solves the problem, you're probably obsessing too much about the code in the first place 🙃️

Sommer 2026: 16.000 Hitzetote 🥵 alleine in 🇩🇪. Dürre. Brände. 🤯 Die Bundesregierung subventioniert jetzt mit 2.500.000.000 € von unseren Steuergeldern die Ursache der Hitze: fossile Brennstoffe. 🤯🤯🤯 Das Geld landet dann wieder bei Ölkonzernen, der Lobby gegen Klimaschutz.

When we say that matter is mostly empty space, that’s wrong because the matter needs all the space to exist. Electrons need space & nucleons need to be in a smaller space. The space between them is non negotiable so saying matter is mostly empty is an empty statement.

Damn Ukraine! 😂

Wer jahrelang Deregulierung predigt, müsste kletternde #Energiepreise eigentlich feiern. Es ist genau das, was die reine Lehre vorsieht: ein funktionierendes Preissignal für Knappheit. Aber Marktlogik ist halt nur so lange geil, wie sie die eigenen Taschen füllt. Sobald es wehtut, greift der Reflex: 1. Die unsichtbare Hand plötzlich als „Gier“ verteufeln. 2. Nach staatlichen Subventionen brüllen – sie aber „ordnungspolitische Ausnahmen“ taufen, um die eigene Ideologie nicht zu verbrennen. 3. Sozialisierung der Verluste, Privatisierung der Gewinne. Butter bei die Fische: Niemand will den freien Markt wirklich. Ihr wollt eine Vollkaskoversicherung auf Staatskosten mit der Illusion von Freiheit. Steht wenigstens dazu.

@Codie_Sanchez OWN

Excellent OpEd in the FT by Mario Draghi arguing that (1) without higher productivity Europe cannot sustain our social model; (2) that AI is our best possibility to do that; (3) that dependence on US and China makes this hard for sovereignty. He proposes building up European compute, using our data advantage, and pooling corporate demand to finance it. ft.com/content/f054f9…

This is good. ESA is finally pressuring our governments to take more action. Europe cannot afford to lose in the NXT space race, as outlined by Aschbacher, it would mean "European astronauts fly only when others make a seat available and if even available at prices set by foreign providers. European scientists wait to be granted access to foreign orbital laboratories. European researchers and astronauts depend on foreign infrastructure, transportation and priorities to conduct their work." So what is the future ESA is pressuring for instead? "ESA astronauts board a European human-rated spacecraft launched from European territory. They travel to a space station, built with European technology. There, Europeans work with colleagues from around the globe, conducting research that creates new opportunities here on Earth supported by European transportation, navigation and communication capabilities. The spacecraft returns with scientific discoveries and commercial opportunities that attract the talent Europe needs for its future competitiveness." And "use LEO and the Moon as proving grounds for the technologies, capabilities and partnerships that will ultimately take us to Mars and beyond. This is a Call for Exploration, but these objectives are about much more. They will drive innovation, strengthen the European industrial base, develop critical technologies, and reinforce Europe's security and resilience." Politicians must support these plans. If Europe doesn't take the opportunity we have in space, it would mean we lose in another growth sector, similar to how America dominates consumer technologies. Every Euro spend in Space with ESA, they estimate a €4 return on the broader European economy. Space is a growth machine, and Europe must embrace it.

Josef Aschbacher @AschbacherJosef

2 weeks ago

Will we be passengers or pilots? Customers or service providers? Tenants or architects? At the International Space Summit, I argued that Europe must take steps now to shape its own future in space. Read my full speech 🧑‍🚀🚀 esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/corporate… #ParisSpaceSummit

11 61 207 81K 28

who needs a tutorial when you have Astra I gave Astra a link to the Reachy Mini assembly guide on @huggingface, and asked for a 3D app that shows where each piece goes - it pulled 51 steps, diagrams, and video timestamps - found 41 public 3D meshes + the assembly description in @pollenrobotics repo - reconstructed the parts and fitted positions - built step-by-step placement animations, like rotate, zoom, before/after, replay - shipped an interactive web app share your Astra experiments!