IT Search’s David Shanahan discusses recruitment in fintech, the crucial skills jobseekers should prioritise and some recommended educational routes.

For David Shanahan, a director at Irish recruitment agency IT Search, which is a member of the Vertical Markets Group,  it is important for people not to boil everything down to “just working for a fintech start-up” when considering career opportunities in the finance space.

Shanahan told SiliconRepublic.com, “There are opportunities across banks, payments companies, insurance, investment and asset management, as well as newer fintech and regtech businesses.

“From a technology perspective, we’re seeing demand across software engineering, data and AI, cloud, cybersecurity, and infrastructure. There are also more specialist opportunities around payments, fraud, risk and data governance.”

He explained that increasing regulatory requirements – such as DORA, AML and the EU AI Act – are also driving specialist demand at the moment, resulting in the need for compliance professionals with skills crossing over into data, security and infrastructure.

Broad or specific skills?

Often with careers in the STEM space, particular skillsets and educational routes are critical to get where you want to be professionally. For Shanahan, this isn’t necessarily true of careers in fintech. Frequently, a broad skillset can open doors, whilst specialisation down the line can lead to progress. 

“I don’t think there is one particular route you need to follow to work in fintech. A good foundation in computer science, engineering, maths, statistics or another STEM discipline is a strong starting point,” he said. 

“From there, I would concentrate on developing expertise in a particular area. Data and AI, cybersecurity, cloud, software engineering, and data engineering are all areas where we continue to see demand.”

He added, “I also wouldn’t necessarily recommend going back and doing another full degree. Depending on where you are in your career, targeted training or certification combined with practical experience can be more useful.”

Pivoting from a wider IT role into fintech is also a possibility, finds Shanahan, especially for those with strong technical experience. 

“If you’re a software engineer, data engineer, cloud specialist or cybersecurity professional, those skills don’t suddenly change when you move into financial services. The main challenge is showing an employer that you understand the financial environment you’re moving into,” he explained. 

“I would look at the crossover with what you’re already doing. If you’ve worked on secure platforms, high-volume transactional systems, sensitive data, regulated environments or large-scale cloud infrastructure, for example, you may already have a lot of relevant experience.

“It’s really about positioning that experience correctly rather than approaching it as though you’re starting again in a completely new career.”

Contract queries

Unlike other sectors, where part-time work is more common, Shanahan noted contracts in this field are currently a mix of permanent employment and full-time opportunities. 

“One of the more interesting trends we’re seeing is the length of some of these contracts. We are working with international banks where contractors are being brought in on long-term programmes running over a number of years. For experienced technology professionals, that can make financial services contracting quite attractive. 

“You can get the flexibility and earning potential with contracting, but also potentially have the stability of working on a large, multi-year programme. I think it also tells us something about where the market is going. These organisations aren’t simply filling short-term gaps. They are committing significant investment to long-term programmes and need specialist skills to deliver them.”

Jobseekers are also having to navigate a landscape in which employers are more selective, compared to a few years ago when there was a “hiring at all costs” approach at the peak of the technology market, he noted. 

“Companies are generally being quite specific about the experience they need. Strong technical skills are obviously still important, but what we’re increasingly seeing is employers looking for people who understand the wider environment they’re working in.”

Standing out

For jobseekers looking to make themselves and their CVs more attractive to a finance-based company, Shanahan suggested making the items within it more obvious in their value.

“Don’t assume somebody reading your CV is going to work out why your experience is relevant to financial services. If you’ve worked with sensitive data, secure systems, high-volume transactions, cloud transformation, cybersecurity, governance or highly regulated environments, make that clear,” he said. 

“A good CV should showcase what you built or changed, what problem it solved and what the result was. Technology is important, but I want to see what you actually did with it. If you built a data platform, tell me what it was used for. If you worked on a cloud migration, give some indication of the scale. If you’ve introduced automation or AI, explain what changed as a result.”

But the best advice he has to offer is simply not to focus on the word ‘fintech’. As professional and industry expectations continue to merge, the line between technology and financial services has become blurred. 

“Banks and established financial institutions are significant technology employers themselves, while fintech companies need people across engineering, data, AI, cloud, security, product and infrastructure.

“My advice would be to concentrate on becoming very good in your particular area while also understanding the business you’re working in. In my experience, that combination tends to give people the strongest long-term career options.”

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

What just happened? OpenClaw shipped version 2026.8.1 over the weekend and is calling it 2.0 – the largest update since the open-source AI agent launched last November. The numbers support the label: 933 contributors, 569 of them first-timers, and more than 16,000 merged pull requests, roughly half of everything the project has merged in its lifetime.

Community manager Hannes Rudolph’s blog post for the release was titled “OpenClaw 2.0, Accidentally,” explaining that the team set out to simplify installation and rebuild the browser app, but then discovered it couldn’t be done in isolation, and ended up reworking the codebase and the full release at the same time.

You might remember a story from earlier this month about an Australian man who asked his AI assistant to book him into a morning gym class. The agent found a flaw in the booking software, discovered it could reserve slots months beyond what the gym allowed, and then, unprompted, hacked the system and jumped the queue. The software that man was running was OpenClaw.

That said, OpenClaw’s cultural moment and hype has been on somewhat of a decline. Not because the tool failed but rather because it worked well: rivals absorbed the blueprint, and now we have ChatGPT Work and Claude Cowork, or Microsoft’s Scout.

The people who stayed use it narrowly. Recurring patterns across forums are unglamorous: inbox monitoring that pings Telegram only when something matters, scheduled network scans that come back as a summary, research and flight comparisons, media library chores. AMD and Nvidia both published guides for running it locally on their own hardware, and the project moved to a nonprofit foundation in July.

Suddenly, OpenClaw stopped being a phenomenon and turned into infrastructure for a smaller, more committed group. Reddit threads now regularly point newcomers to Hermes, a self-hosted alternative, while lighter clones like zeroclaw and goclaw split off the rest. Complaints through July centered on stability, with users reporting the gateway failing to start after updates. On Hacker News, the highest-voted comment under this release just asks who’s still using it.

The new version aims to improve things with a new guided install that scans your machine for AI access you already have: Codex, ChatGPT or Claude logins, API keys, or local Ollama and LM Studio models – and confirms the chosen model can answer a request before saving it. Most configuration has been pushed out of the first run entirely, on the theory that you can finish setting up the agent by talking to it.

OpenClaw dashboard showcase showing a shared multiplayer workspace.

The browser Control UI is now chat-first. The old overview page is gone, sessions moved to a sidebar, and files, approvals, terminals, git diffs and a dockable browser panel sit alongside the conversation. Underneath, sessions and transcripts moved to SQLite, which makes downgrading messy enough that the project recommends a verified backup before you upgrade.

The biggest addition is shared cloud sessions. An admin can grant read-only, suggest, draft or full-participation access to a live agent session with context, which is how the team says it built 2.0 internally. Sandboxing remains off by default.

Security got big improvements as well. Credential requests masked so secrets never enter chat history or model context, an optional 1Password broker, plugin provenance shown before install, workspace-restricted filesystem access, and one-time approvals that expire when an automation’s behavior changes.

So this new better version should be considerably nicer to use, arriving at a moment when most people have moved on to agents that do 80% of this inside an app they already pay for. What OpenClaw still offers to differentiate is ownership: your hardware, your model, your data, no subscription. That was always the pitch, and it’s the one thing the competition can’t copy.

I wrote this article at roughly 3 am, sitting in a clinic lobby while my friend talks to an oncologist in the cabin behind me. The air is saturated with the smell of medicines, of course, and the atmosphere has an unmistakable whiff of gloom that compels me to exit the compound as soon as possible. The overwhelming sensation, however, is that of rage and fury. 

Merely an hour ago, I had received a call from my 24-year-old friend, complaining about a severe headache and pain in her stomach. She is currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer, and after seeing her go through the ordeal over the past two years, I rushed to her place, hoping it was not serious. Without asking too many questions, I looked up the nearest hospital and rushed her for a checkup. 

On the way to the hospital, I asked her when the pain started and if she had experienced any other worrisome symptoms. Her answer shocked me, and to such an extent that I wanted to snatch her phone and crush it to pieces. “After I returned from work, I felt some dizziness and also felt that something was not right in my gut. So, I asked ChatGPT if I could take painkillers, and a few hours after I took them, the gut pain worsened with a burning sensation. I also vomited a few times.” 

Who must act responsibly?

The admission shook me, and the casual tone in which she described her ChatGPT interactions was even more frightening. But there are so many layers to this mishap that I’ve decided to ban AI for my loved ones, especially when it comes to health and wellness-related conversations. As someone who is extremely sensitive to medications and who is going through cancer treatment, asking an AI about taking medicines was the last thing you would expect any sane person to do. 

I don’t know exactly who is to blame for this potentially life-threatening misadventure. She simply took a picture of a painkiller, fed it to ChatGPT, and asked if she could take two pills at the same time. Her doctor has only recommended her one pill at a time, and that too, when the pain is too severe to tolerate. ChatGPT told her she should take one painkiller, and two of them, only with a doctor’s recommendation.

When I asked why she turned to the AI bot, she later told me ChatGPT “is easier to get answers from. I don’t even know what’s real on the internet.” For a person who had to drop studies after high school and support their family with odd jobs, I understood her predicament. I couldn’t lecture her on the concepts of digital literacy and fact-checking. There was so much wrong with that chat, and both parties are to blame here. 

This is where the problem begins. She is not a native speaker of the Hindi language, and when she translated her query into Hindi, it was a grammatical disaster owing to just one word. She wanted to ask if she could take two pills of the medicine appearing in the picture. But her broken translation made it seem as if she was asking ChatGPT if she could take “both medicines.”

This is where ChatGPT also tripped. The picture shows a pill with only its chemical composition visible — Diclofenac and Serraptiopeptidase. The name of the medicine was only half visible. Despite that, the AI bot accurately identified the painkiller medicine as “something like Cipzen-D.” But before that, it also mentioned another medicine, Fenak Plus, whose chemical composition is Diclofenac and Paracetamol, and which she had previously discussed in another conversation.

It’s an entirely different composition, even though both are easily available as over-the-counter painkiller medicines that you can even buy (worryingly) without a proper prescription at local dispensaries. So, broadly, we have one human mistake (with translation) and two mistakes by ChatGPT because it was also pulling knowledge from its memory.  The advice, however, was accurate. 

OpenAI’s AI bot clearly warned that taking both medicines is not a good move, adding that it could lead to an overdose of Diclofenac. The AI bot also described the after-effects, which included a burning sensation in the stomach, ulcer-related problems, bleeding, and long-term ill-effects on the kidneys. 

Do keep in mind that the picture fed to ChatGPT only depicted one painkiller. It further recommended that only one of those painkillers must be taken at a time, and not both. My friend, recalling that both medicines had been prescribed by doctors at one point (though not together), took them both for quick pain relief and soon felt the wrath.

The doctor was also furious and, rightfully so, when my friend told them why she took two pills at the same time, chiding her for not consulting a healthcare professional. It was followed by an injection to ease her pain and a fresh medical prescription for painkillers that don’t harm her fragile body. 

As a technology reporter who has written about the risks of AI interactions on sensitive topics, especially health and wellness, I felt like a failure. I felt that I never actually had a chat about the risks of AI bots with my friend. And it was only after the scary incident that I warned her about the risks. 

When she confessed to using ChatGPT for medical advice on multiple other occasions in the past, I took her phone and deleted the app. More importantly, I asked her to never touch another AI chatbot — such as Gemini or Claude — for medical advice, or the whole internet, for that matter. The only way forward is talking to a doctor, or visiting a clinic. 

The perception problem

I don’t blame her entirely for the episode. Given the fashion in which ChatGPT has rooted itself in the daily digital habits of the masses as an all-knowing genie, it’s hard to blame her. People see it as a more convenient (and truthful) answering engine compared to the friction of looking up answers on Google Search, clicking on blue links, and skimming through the answers on a webpage(s).

They’re not wrong, to be fair. Getting straightforward answers from an AI bot like ChatGPT, and that, too, in natural language within a matter of seconds, is far more convenient than entering the maze of Google Search links. Google is also aware of the changing user behavior, which also explains the push being given to the conversational AI mode in Search. 

As of today, the conversational answers supplied by Gemini sit atop the regular search results. The idea is identical: giving users summarized answers extracted from the blue link sources on Google Search before they go on a deeper hunt for knowledge by reading multiple sources spaced across half a dozen tabs  

To their credit, ChatGPT (or most frontier AI models, for that matter) plays it especially safe when someone seeks health and wellness advice. In an overwhelming majority of such answers, the AI bots ask the user to consult a certified healthcare professional or access the appropriate helpline. But once again, the way these AI chatbots have entered the public discourse as a quick and trusty source of knowledge is what makes them equally scary. 

A few days ago, I was watching a heated debate on a prime-time news channel. During the fiery exchange, one of the panelists asked their opponent to go ahead and check the facts by asking ChatGPT. In that moment, I saw ChatGPT being talked about as the modern-age equivalent of finding answers in an encyclopedia, and that too, from a stage that influences millions of people in the world’s second-largest market for AI chatbots. 

Lost in translation

The US sits at the top of AI adoption, but the country also has arguably the highest awareness about the risks of using AI chatbots. In India, digital literacy (and AI awareness) is dramatically lower, and hence, the risk potential is much higher. The danger is further exacerbated by the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are using ChatGPT and other AI agents in a native Indian language. And this is one of the key drivers behind the recent episode with my friend: ChatGPT’s language problem.

In a research study published earlier this year, the MIT Center for Constructive Communication mentions that the accuracy of answers provided by AI chatbots is lower if users are interacting in a non-English language. The SAHARA benchmark, released in December last year, also highlighted a similar discrepancy in AI chatbot behavior when users are talking in a non-English language. The Economist also highlighted numerous papers in which the language issue of LLMs was laid bare. 

The language barrier further raises the risk quotient. 

Translation is not the only problem, though. Healthwatch England, an independent consumer advocacy group for patients in the UK public health system, has also warned about the risks of using AI transcription tools by doctors and healthcare experts. Here’s a worrying snapshot from our report:

“In one alarming instance, an AI tool reviewed an MRI summary and documented that a patient had demyelination, a serious nerve condition linked to multiple sclerosis. The scan actually revealed “null demyelination”, meaning the issue was not present.”

It’s an obvious flaw that large language models have to fix, but there’s an even bigger issue at play here. AI chatbots need to do better when dealing with sensitive topics. The likes of ChatGPT have implemented parental controls and often tell users to seek help, while also offering helpline numbers and reliable resources. You will also see a warning that ChatGPT is not a doctor, or some form of it.

But these warnings should appear right at the top for all such conversations, and not buried below the first few sentences, which is where most users get their answer and never bother to read further. I would much rather prefer to see a wide banner right at the top, and this protocol should be drilled into the very heart of the AI model’s behavior.

Next, we need awareness. A lot of it. AI companies are busy parading how their LLMs are solving complex mathematical problems, beating humans at olympiads, and helping with medical breakthroughs. But all that happens under the supervision of experts. For an average person, for whom ChatGPT is a source of quick and conversational knowledge, the warnings and disclaimers should take priority. 

OpenAI may play it safe, but the public perception of ChatGPT is evolving dangerously fast.

A lot of users see it as a new kind of knowledge engine, one that talks like any other human. There are numerous cases of AI bots giving dangerously bad health advice, and as of 2026, research continues to highlight their risky behavior on sensitive topics. I just hope OpenAI, and every other AI player out there, thinks this through and takes appropriate action.

from the shithole-presidency dept

I can’t assume the Trump administration hoped this would happen. But I can’t believe no one in the administration (Trump, Stephen Miller, Tom Homan) isn’t secretly thrilled that this has happened.

The administration managed to revoke temporary protected status for Haitian refugees in America, a decision that affects nearly 350,000 people. The revocation of this status (which involved a protracted court battle) comes with the implication that these refugees are no longer in danger and can safely return to the country they fled.

No one in the administration actually appears to believe this is true about Haiti. When questioned about it, “Immigration Czar” Tom Homan couldn’t actually form a coherent sentence in defense of sending thousands of refugees to their doom.

“Why is the Trump administration knowingly sending Haitians, including many who’ve lived in the U.S. legally under Temporary Protected Status, into the danger that they describe?” [CNN’s Dana] Bash asked Homan.

“We’re returning deportees to their home country,” Homan replied. “I’m not in the loop on this specific incident … but when people are deported, they can’t stay here, they’re gonna go home.”

Advertisement

At best, this is what is known as a conclusory statement. It’s the equivalent of using the word you’re defining in the definition. Of course people being deported can’t stay in the US. That’s how deportation works. But that doesn’t answer the question that was asked: how can this administration justify the deportation of Haitians to a country the State Department says is so dangerous it has issued a “No Travel Advisory?”

This doesn’t either, although it does make it clear every Trump administration official will simply feign ignorance when confronted with their own awfulness:

“Look, the bottom line is they’ve been ordered removed,” Homan replied. “I don’t know the conditions in Haiti. I’ve never been to Haiti. I don’t know if you have. But look, the judge made a decision … and they need to go home.”

Yep, there’s literally no way to tell how things are in Haiti without actually going there yourself. But you won’t because the State Department is pretty fucking clear that Haiti is a bad place where bad things happen.

Here’s the exact wording used by the State Department, which, I must remind you, is headed by Trump stan Marco Rubio (emphasis in the original):

Do not travel to Haiti due to the risk of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, unrest, and limited health care. 

This has been true of Haiti for decades. Multiple rounds of plundering by foreign nations (including our own) destabilized the nation to the point where it’s just been a succession of coups and dictatorships for most of the past 150 years. It hasn’t been a safe place to live for more than a century. And now, because a bunch of bigots are running our country, it’s only safe enough for deported Haitians, even if it definitely isn’t safe enough for US citizens.

That’s because this administration — or at least a handful of the people involved in running it — don’t consider Haitians to be people. At best, they’re maybe two-thirds of a white American, which is why the State Department tells US citizens not to go there, even as this same government is escalating deportations of Haitian refugees.

Oh, did we mention it’s not safe for US citizens? Why, then, are we deporting literal US citizens to Haiti?

The Department of Homeland Security sent a second deportation flight in a week to Haiti on Thursday, returning 57 Haitians to the unstable Caribbean country, including several children born in the U.S. and Brazil.

You do know what people born in the US are, right? They’re US citizens. Trump may be trying to undo birthright citizenship, but the law of the land (and a recent rejection of Trump’s racist overtures by the Supreme Court) still makes these kids US citizens. And who knows why we’re flying Brazilian kids to Haiti other than just because we can.

Of course, this all traces back to Trump himself. During his 2024 presidential campaign, he amplified and repeated racist claims that Haitian refugees were stealing neighbors’ pets and eating them. Prior to that — during his first term in office — he referred to Haiti (along with the entire continent of Africa) as a “shithole country.”

And that’s why what has just happened in Haiti — a country that has already seen 3,000 killings in the first six months of this year — is more likely to make Trump (and a bunch of his enablers) pleased, rather than horrified:

At least 47 people were killed and more than 50 others kidnapped when armed men attacked a once-peaceful community near Haiti’s capital earlier this week, the United Nations said Tuesday.

It is believed to be one of the largest mass kidnappings in Haiti in recent years, and one gang leader is threatening to kill the hostages if authorities kill any gang members as they try to secure the community nestled in the hills above Port-au-Prince.

If you don’t think the hostages are going to be killed in the near future, you’re hopelessly optimistic. The gang has made it clear that any attempt to free hostages will result in their death. And the gang really doesn’t need the hostages because there are still plenty of other people to kill and/or kidnap in the area they’re trying to control. Government officials aren’t exactly sounding confident that they’ll be able to do anything to limit the final murder total, which clearly demonstrates Haiti is not a safe place to exist, much less seek to eke out a living.

And there are more victims of violent crime arriving every day, thanks to the Trump administration. Some of those potential crime victims were born in the US. The youngest deportee born in the US on the most recent flight is only three years old.

But this is all fine with Trump and his MAGA faithful. People who aren’t white get what they get, especially if they’re from third-world countries where residents are just expected to eat shit and die, rather than grab their piece of the American Dream these faux patriots continue to claim makes us the best country in the world.

Filed Under: bigotry, cruelty, dhs, donald trump, haiti, ice, mass deportation, stephen miller, tom homan, tps, trump administration

This story was originally published by Tech Policy Press.

The European Union’s push for technological sovereignty faces an uncomfortable contradiction.

As the EU rolls out AI factories, gigafactories, and new data centers, it is creating a surge in demand for the advanced semiconductors that underpin artificial intelligence. Yet Europe produces fewer than 10 percent of the world’s chips and remains heavily dependent on U.S. designers and Asian manufacturers for the most advanced processors.

That tension sits at the heart of Chips Act 2.0, the European Commission’s planned overhaul of its flagship semiconductor strategy.

The original Chips Act, adopted in 2023, sought to raise Europe’s share of global semiconductor production to 20 percent by 2030. But the European Court of Auditors has warned that target is unlikely to be met, while the Commission’s own projections put Europe’s market share at about 11.7 percent.

The Commission now wants to correct what officials see as a major weakness in the first law: It focused on expanding supply without doing enough to stimulate demand. To address that gap, Chips Act 2.0 is expected to introduce demand-side measures, including public procurement tools, demand accelerators, and closer coordination between semiconductor producers and industrial users. The Commission’s calculation is straightforward: Stronger domestic demand will encourage companies to invest in designing and manufacturing chips in Europe.

But the strategy carries a paradox. The AI infrastructure that the Commission hopes will anchor a European semiconductor ecosystem will initially rely almost entirely on advanced processors designed by U.S. companies and manufactured in Asia.

“Key positions are held by a small number of firms, mostly outside Europe,” Claire Godfrey, executive director of the Balanced Economy Project, told Tech Policy Press.

AI factories create a demand trap

The European Commission’s AI Continent action plan includes 19 AI factories, computing facilities that integrate energy sources, specialized chips, and other infrastructure for running AI models and applications, plans for up to five AI gigafactories (since upgraded to seven), and a proposal to at least triple the bloc’s data center capacity within five to seven years under the Cloud and AI Development Act. That expansion will require a large supply of advanced AI processors.

The Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS) estimates that each planned AI factory site requires up to 25,000 advanced chips, while a gigafactory requires at least 100,000.

Almost all of those processors are expected to come from Nvidia. The company supplies most of the graphics processing units deployed in Europe, while its proprietary CUDA software underpins much of the AI software ecosystem. CEPS warns this could create an “Nvidia dependency trap,” where computing infrastructure is physically located in Europe but remains technologically dependent on a single U.S. supplier.

Recent AI infrastructure projects in Europe illustrate the problem. Mistral has lined up 13,800 Nvidia GPUs for a data center near Paris. Deutsche Telekom’s Munich Industrial AI Cloud is being built with nearly 10,000 Nvidia Blackwell GPUs. And Nscale says its Sines deployment for Microsoft will start with more than 12,600 Nvidia Blackwell Ultra GPUs before expanding to more than 66,000 in 2027.

Europe still doesn’t control the chip supply chain

The challenge extends well beyond Nvidia. Even if Europe succeeds in expanding semiconductor manufacturing, the global supply chain limits how much autonomy any single region can achieve.

“Europe depends on both the United States and Asia, but at different stages of the value chain,” Toni Roldán-Monés, economist and assistant professor of public policy at IE University, told Tech Policy Press.

“The United States maintains a dominant position in areas such as chip design, intellectual property, and certain frontier equipment. Meanwhile, the manufacturing of the most advanced semiconductors is highly concentrated in Asia, especially in Taiwan and South Korea, while China plays a fundamental role in various materials, industrial processes, and critical minerals,” said Roldán.

Europe’s reliance on third countries is more evident in some parts of the chip value chain. In fabrication, Taiwan produces around 90 percent of the world’s most advanced chips. In packaging, assembly, and testing, the EU holds just 4 percent of the market and remains highly dependent on Asia, according to Laith Altimime, President of SEMI Europe.

“The objective is… to avoid excessive dependence on a single country, company, or technology.” Toni Roldán-Monés

“No top 20 assembly, test, and packaging company is headquartered in the EU,” Godfrey said. “There is also the materials issue. China dominates several inputs used in key parts of the semiconductor and advanced electronics supply chain.”

Europe nevertheless retains important advantages.

The region is home to ASML, the Dutch company that dominates the market for extreme ultraviolet lithography systems, and to Belgium’s Imec, one of the world’s leading semiconductor research centers. Europe also remains a key supplier of specialist materials and power electronics.

Those strengths, however, “do not translate into autonomy across the semiconductor value chain,” Roldán said.

Sovereignty means resilience, not self-sufficiency

Few experts believe complete semiconductor self-sufficiency is achievable.

Instead, the goal should be to reduce strategic vulnerabilities rather than eliminate international interdependence. “It is not conceivable that one country can rebuild the supply chain. Global collaboration is key,” SEMI Europe’s Altimime told Tech Policy Press. SEMI forecasts that by 2028 the Europe, Middle East, and Africa region will only manufacture about 68 percent by volume of the non-memory semiconductor chips it demands.

“The challenge is to reduce dependencies that could become geopolitical vulnerabilities,” argues Roldán. “The sensible approach is to strengthen critical parts of the value chain, diversify suppliers, protect sensitive data, and develop domestic capabilities in strategic sectors. That can coexist perfectly well with foreign suppliers: The objective is not to expel them, but to avoid excessive dependence on a single country, company, or technology.”

That distinction is especially relevant for Europe’s sovereignty ambitions. As Godfrey notes, “European firms are building around Nvidia hardware, CUDA, cloud infrastructure, and the software choices that come with them. That leaves Europe with two problems. It relies on Asian manufacturing and materials chokepoints. It is also at risk of trying to address that exposure by tying itself more closely to U.S.-controlled AI and cloud infrastructure. The Chips Act 2.0 needs to deal with both, or it will miss a large part of the problem.”

Roldán said Europe’s greatest vulnerability is dependence on partners willing to use global supply chains for geopolitical leverage. Whether Chips Act 2.0 reduces that risk, experts say, will depend on whether it diversifies suppliers rather than just shifting dependence from Asian manufacturers to U.S. technology companies.

OpenAI says ChatGPT Ads has reached $1B in annualised revenue run rate in under 200 days and has opened self-service buying across Europe, India, the Middle East and North Africa. On the same day the European Commission designated ChatGPT a Very Large Online Search Engine under the Digital Services Act, on 159.1 million declared monthly users in the EU.

ChatGPT’s advertising business has reached $1B in annualised revenue in under 200 days. Self-service buying opens across Europe, India, the Middle East and North Africa, OpenAI said.

The purpose it gives for this is a free tier. Advertising sits alongside subscriptions, enterprise deals and paid API access, funding a free ChatGPT for more than a billion weekly users.

The same day brought something OpenAI did not mention. The European Commission designated ChatGPT a Very Large Online Search Engine under the Digital Services Act, Euronews reported.

The number that triggered it is 159.1 million. That is ChatGPT’s declared average of monthly active users in the EU, against a designation threshold of 45 million.

Europe was already being sold to. TNW reported this month that ChatGPT ads were reaching 31 European countries through OpenAI’s own sales team and its partners.

What changed today is who can buy. Ads Manager lets any business purchase directly, which is how small and medium companies enter a market previously run through agencies.

One obligation lands squarely on that. Designated platforms and search engines must keep a public advertisement repository, the Commission’s guidance says.

It has to hold a year of history after an ad last runs. Content, who paid, the period it ran, the targeting parameters used and how many people it reached.

The buying is already specific enough to make that interesting. Cost per click and outcome-optimised bidding now account for most campaigns, after TNW covered the move to CPC.

The stricter advertising rule may not reach it. The ban on ads profiled using sensitive data is written for providers of online platforms, and ChatGPT has been designated a search engine.

Personalisation is where the announcement hedges. OpenAI says the system may draw on a user’s broader ChatGPT experience depending on the country and their settings, in a product it is building towards conversational ads.

Nobody has resolved the scope question publicly. Ireland’s digital services coordinator supervises ChatGPT, and OpenAI has four months to comply with what the designation does bring.

Which is what makes the timing worth noting. People tell a chatbot things they would never type into a search box, and the rule written for that data is pointed at a category ChatGPT was not put in.

Mattress deals come around pretty frequently, which means you can almost always save at least some money. But the very best deals come around Memorial Day, Labor Day, Black Friday, and Cyber Monday. If you’re in the market for a new bed, or you need some sleep accessories like bedding, pillows, or blankets, we’ve found deals on tried-and-tested favorites. We’ll update this story again as more Labor Day mattress deals go live.

Be sure to check out our related roundups for deals on tools, outdoor gear, tech, and kitchen goods.

WIRED Featured Mattress Deals

Our Top Mattress

Helix Sleep Midnight Luxe Hybrid Mattress (14-Inch)

Show Deal

Best for Back Pain

Bear Elite Hybrid (Firm)

Advertisement

Show Deal

Our Favorite Soft Sheets

Bearaby Second Skin Sheet Set

Show Deal

Early Labor Day Mattress Deals

Use code LUXE25 at checkout to save on the best mattress we’ve ever tried. Out of the hundreds of options we tested, this strikes the best balance between features and price for most sleepers. Individually wrapped springs provide support and pressure relief, and six layers of cushioning mean it’s cozy but not overly plush. Make sure you get deep-pocketed sheets to accommodate the 13-inch height.

The Love Island USA season 8 reunion premieres exclusively on Peacock on Monday, August 31 at 9pm ET and if it’s anything like the spicy trailer, reality TV fans are in for a treat. All eyes on Melanie… that’s all we’re saying.

You can watch the Love Island USA season 8 reunion online from anywhere with a VPN and potentially for free.

Every F-35 pilot in the US Air Force gets their own custom-fitted $400,000 helmet, which lets them peer through the cockpit mid-flight to see what’s going on in the surrounding airspace and the ground below.

This is possible through six infrared cameras embedded on to the flight’s exterior, broadcasting a 360-degree video stream straight into the pilot’s visor. Pilots say it’s like being able to see through the hull of the aircraft, as if it were made of glass.

No expense spared

The Cronos blockchain network has resumed trading activity after a price-manipulation attack on the Tectonic cryptocurrency lending platform allowed an attacker to borrow $74 million.

According to current information, the threat actor artificially inflated the price of Tectonic’s TONIC token by 100 times, then used it as collateral to borrow real assets. The price manipulation happened in 20 minutes.

Despite the massive amount the exploit generated, the attacker only managed to steal roughly $6 million worth of Ethereum, the rest of the funds being “stuck” on Cronos, says blockchain security and data analytics company PeckShield.

Cronos is an Ethereum-like blockchain network associated with Crypto.com, while Tectonic is a decentralized finance (DeFi) lending app running on Cronos.

Tectonic, which was Cronos’ largest lending protocol before the incident, holding $122 million, allows users to deposit cryptocurrency and borrow against assets they provide as collateral.

After the incident, the total value locked according to DeFiLlama is just under $3 million.

Yesterday, Tectonic announced that it was investigating an incident and advised users not to interact with the protocol until the platform publicly confirmed that it was safe to do so.

Cronos responded quickly to the detected exploit and halted the blockchain’s operation, freezing all transactions in progress at the time.

Earlier today, Cronos restarted the network again and notified users that it “is producing blocks again and is fully back online.”

“This was a validator-consensus emergency action to protect users from an exploit on the Tectonic protocol,” Cronos states.

“The chain state was restored to before the Tectonic exploit from this morning. Cronos is producing blocks again as of 2026-08-30 23:49:01 UTC, starting from block 90,896,189.”

The blockchain is currently being closely monitored for stability, protocol compatibility, and other issues.

The platform also said it would provide further details about the exploit in a post-mortem report to be published soon.

Overall prevention scores can hide what happens after initial access. Once attackers are using valid credentials, prevention drops sharply.

The Blue Report 2026 measures defenses technique by technique across 338 million simulations run in customer production environments.

Get the report