<p><br /><strong>Waarom dit idee nu relevant wordt voor groeiende bedrijven in de EU</strong></p><h2 id="kernboodschap">Kernboodschap</h2><p>De Europese Unie werkt aan het idee van een nieuwe, optionele bedrijfsvorm die vanaf de start grensoverschrijdend inzetbaar is. Niet om nationale BV’s, GmbH’s of SARL’s te vervangen, maar om een alternatief te bieden voor bedrijven die <strong>EU-breed willen opschalen zonder telkens opnieuw het juridische wiel uit te vinden</strong>.</p><p>Voor ondernemers gaat dit niet over oprichten alleen, maar over wat daarna komt: groeien, mensen aannemen in meerdere landen, aandelenstructuren opzetten en kapitaal aantrekken binnen Europa.</p><h2 id="wat-is-eu-inc-precies">Wat is EU-INC precies?</h2><p>EU-INC is de informele naam voor een voorgestelde <strong>pan-Europese rechtsvorm</strong>, ook wel het “28ste regime” genoemd. Het idee is dat bedrijven kunnen kiezen voor één Europese juridische structuur die in alle lidstaten wordt erkend.</p><p>Belangrijke uitgangspunten:</p><ul><li>EU-INC is <strong>optioneel</strong>. Nationale rechtsvormen blijven bestaan.</li><li>Belastingen en arbeidsrecht blijven <strong>nationaal geregeld</strong>.</li><li>De focus ligt op <strong>vennootschapsrecht, governance en kapitaalstructuren</strong>.</li></ul><p>Je kunt het zien als een extra juridische laag die bedoeld is om grensoverschrijdend ondernemerschap eenvoudiger en consistenter te maken, zonder de nationale autonomie volledig los te laten.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://www.eu-inc.org/"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">EU–INC — One Europe. One Standard. — Pan-European legal entity.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">EU–INC is a proposal for a pan-European standardized legal entity to unlock pan-European startup scaling.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://www.chatvoorbedrijven.nl/content/images/icon/hTcgaWRewUNZeB6wVrfBSXk9Mn0.svg" alt="" /></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://www.chatvoorbedrijven.nl/content/images/thumbnail/DywwAp236AdnECpow4p9VcGluY.png" alt="" /></div></a></figure><h2 id="waarom-dit-voorstel-nu-weer-op-tafel-ligt">Waarom dit voorstel nu weer op tafel ligt</h2><p>In veel EU-landen is het oprichten van een bedrijf inmiddels snel en digitaal geregeld. Dat is niet het knelpunt.</p><p>De complexiteit ontstaat zodra een bedrijf:</p><ul><li>actief wordt in meerdere landen</li><li>personeel aanneemt buiten het land van oprichting</li><li>aandelen, opties of converteerbare leningen wil uitgeven</li><li>investeerders aantrekt uit andere EU-lidstaten</li></ul><p>Elke extra jurisdictie betekent een nieuw juridisch systeem, met eigen regels voor bestuur, aandeelhouders, rapportage en compliance. Dat maakt groei duurder, trager en risicovoller. Voor investeerders is dit vaak een reden om voorkeur te geven aan bedrijven die buiten Europa zijn gestructureerd.</p><p>EU-INC probeert precies dát probleem te adresseren.</p><h2 id="wat-is-de-status-nu">Wat is de status nu?</h2><p>Er is <strong>nog geen wet</strong> en er is <strong>nog geen definitieve juridische structuur</strong>. Wat er wel is:</p><ul><li>Een duidelijke politieke oproep aan de Europese Commissie om met een concreet voorstel te komen.</li><li>Toenemende steun vanuit startup-ecosystemen, investeerders en beleidsmakers.</li></ul><p>Als de Commissie met een voorstel komt, volgt daarna een langdurig traject van onderhandelingen met lidstaten. Het gaat dus om jaren, niet om maanden.</p><p>Voor ondernemers verandert er vandaag niets. Maar de <strong>richting is duidelijker dan in eerdere pogingen</strong>.</p><h2 id="waarom-eerdere-pogingen-strandden">Waarom eerdere pogingen strandden</h2><p>Het idee van één Europese bedrijfsvorm is niet nieuw. Eerdere voorstellen, zoals de European Private Company, zijn nooit breed ingevoerd.</p><p>Terugkerende bezwaren zijn onder andere:</p><ul><li>nationale controle over vennootschapsrecht</li><li>angst voor juridische ‘shoppen’ tussen systemen</li><li>zorgen over arbeidsrechten en sociale bescherming</li><li>de vraag of bestaande nationale structuren niet voldoende zijn</li></ul><p>Ook de naam “EU-INC” roept weerstand op. Voor sommigen klinkt die te Amerikaans of te sterk gericht op aandeelhouderswaarde.</p><h2 id="wat-zou-eu-inc-concreet-kunnen-betekenen-voor-bedrijven">Wat zou EU-INC concreet kunnen betekenen voor bedrijven?</h2><p>Als het voorstel er daadwerkelijk komt, zou EU-INC in theorie bieden:</p><ul><li>één juridische entiteit geldig in de hele EU</li><li>één set governance-regels</li><li>eenvoudiger uitgifte van aandelen en opties</li><li>een centraal Europees register in plaats van nationale versnippering</li></ul><p>Daarmee kan het voor groeiende bedrijven makkelijker worden om EU-breed te opereren zonder telkens juridische herstructureringen.</p><p>Tegelijk blijft het belangrijk om realistisch te blijven:</p><p>belasting, sociale zekerheid en arbeidsrecht blijven nationaal. EU-INC haalt frictie weg, maar elimineert die niet volledig.</p><h2 id="wat-heb-je-hier-als-ondernemer-n%C3%BA-aan">Wat heb je hier als ondernemer nú aan?</h2><p>EU-INC is geen instrument dat je morgen kunt gebruiken. Het is wel relevant om:</p><ul><li>te begrijpen <strong>waar Europa economisch naartoe wil</strong></li><li>te volgen als je ambities of investeerders EU-breed zijn</li><li>mee te nemen in strategische discussies over vestigingsstructuren</li></ul><p>Het voorstel raakt aan een grotere vraag: wil Europa een interne markt zijn waar kapitaal en ondernemerschap écht kunnen schalen, of blijft groei vooral nationaal georganiseerd?</p><h2 id="afsluitend">Afsluitend</h2><p>EU-INC is geen revolutie op korte termijn. Het is een signaal dat Europa zoekt naar manieren om ondernemerschap, innovatie en kapitaalvorming minder versnipperd te maken.</p><p>Voor ondernemers en adviseurs is het vooral iets om <strong>te volgen, te begrijpen en te plaatsen</strong>. Niet omdat het morgen alles verandert, maar omdat het veel zegt over hoe de Europese markt zich de komende tien jaar zou kunnen ontwikkelen.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_26_150"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Special Address by President von der Leyen at the World Economic Forum</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">It is now 55 years since the first meeting here in Davos. The idea of the founder, Klaus Schwab, was to create a platform to discuss the issues and the ideas of the day. Of course, the world has transformed completely since 1971. But the original idea of Davos has remained, as we have just heard in the speeches. So I was delighted that you have gone back to your roots with this year\’s theme – A Spirit of Dialogue.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg" alt="" /><span class="kg-bookmark-author">European Commission - European Commission</span></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://www.chatvoorbedrijven.nl/content/images/thumbnail/sm_ec_logo_big.jpg" alt="" /></div></a></figure>

<p>There is something interesting about turning text into diagrams.</p><p>Not illustrations, but diagrams that express structure: flows, dependencies, sequences. This becomes especially noticeable when the text itself is not prose, but something closer to a script. Ordered sentences that describe relations rather than tell a story.</p><p>That is roughly the space where Mermaid sits.</p><h2 id="text-as-structure-not-as-explanation">Text as structure, not as explanation</h2><p>Mermaid is usually introduced as a way to generate diagrams from text. That description is accurate, but incomplete.</p><p>What matters more is that the text is the primary artefact. You are not drawing shapes. You are describing relationships. The diagram is a rendering of that description, not the other way around.</p><p>Because of that, the process is reversible. You can always go back to the text, adjust it, and regenerate the diagram. Nothing is lost in translation.</p><p>This is different from most visual diagramming tools, where structure slowly dissolves into manual layout decisions. Once you start dragging boxes around, the model lives in your head rather than in the artefact. Mermaid keeps the structure explicit.</p><div class="kg-card kg-callout-card kg-callout-card-blue"><div class="kg-callout-emoji">💡</div><div class="kg-callout-text"><b><strong style="white-space:pre-wrap">What is Mermaid?</strong></b><br />Mermaid is an open-source, text-based diagramming language created around 2014 by <b><strong style="white-space:pre-wrap">Knut Sveidqvist</strong></b>. It allows you to describe diagrams such as flows, sequences, and state machines using plain text, which can then be rendered into visual diagrams. Mermaid is not a formal standard governed by a standards body, but it has become a widely adopted de facto standard in documentation and developer tooling, much like Markdown. Its focus is on expressing structure rather than visual design, which makes diagrams easy to edit, version, and regenerate. This text-first approach is also why Mermaid works particularly well with modern language models, which can read, generate, and modify Mermaid syntax directly.</div></div><h2 id="low-resolution-by-design">Low resolution, by design</h2><p>I tend to think of Mermaid in the same category as <a href="https://hoeijmakers.net/markdown-google-docs/" rel="noreferrer">Markdown</a>.</p><p>Both are intentionally low-resolution formats. They do not try to look good. They try to stay readable, portable, and precise. You can open them in any editor, version them, diff them, or move them between systems without friction.</p><p>That constraint is not a drawback. It is what makes them durable.</p><p>The result is usually good enough visually, but strong in terms of meaning. For thinking, that trade-off is often exactly right.</p><h2 id="what-changes-with-language-models">What changes with language models</h2><p>What makes Mermaid more relevant now than it used to be is that large language models understand it natively.</p><p>They can generate Mermaid diagrams from descriptions, modify existing ones, or explain what a diagram represents. That lowers the threshold for working with structured diagrams, especially when you are still figuring things out.</p><p>You can start with a rough explanation, ask for a diagram, adjust the structure in natural language, and iterate. The diagram becomes part of the thinking process rather than a final documentation step.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-ChatGPT.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="1920" height="1080" srcset="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-ChatGPT.jpg 600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1000/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-ChatGPT.jpg 1000w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1600/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-ChatGPT.jpg 1600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-ChatGPT.jpg 1920w" /><figcaption><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">Mermaid Chart GPT in </span><a href="https://hoeijmakers.net/tag/chatgpt/" rel="noreferrer"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">ChatGPT</span></a></figcaption></figure><h2 id="a-tighter-feedback-loop">A tighter feedback loop</h2><p>If you connect Mermaid generation into your workflow, for example via an MCP setup or similar tooling, that loop tightens further.</p><p>You explain something.<br />You get a diagram.<br />You adjust the structure.<br />You regenerate.</p><p>No redrawing. No exporting. No loss of intent.</p><p>This is particularly useful for architecture sketches, process descriptions, or system overviews that are still in flux.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-Claude.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="1920" height="1080" srcset="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-Claude.jpg 600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1000/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-Claude.jpg 1000w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1600/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-Claude.jpg 1600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/Mermaid-Chart-in-Claude.jpg 1920w" /><figcaption><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">Mermaid integration into Claude</span></figcaption></figure><h2 id="why-it-works-for-me">Why it works for me</h2><p>Mermaid is not a general-purpose diagramming tool, and it does not try to be one. It assumes that structure matters more than appearance, and that text is a reasonable place to express that structure.</p><p>If you are already comfortable working in Markdown, Mermaid tends to feel familiar rather than foreign.</p><p>And if you combine it with a language model, it becomes a practical way to move back and forth between explanation, structure, and visualisation with very little overhead.</p><p>Not a revolution. Just a tool that fits well with text-first ways of thinking.</p><hr /><p>I personally have a paid plan for this service:</p><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://mermaid.js.org"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Mermaid</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">Create diagrams and visualizations using text and code.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/icon/favicon-41.ico" alt="" /><span class="kg-bookmark-author">Try Editor</span></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/thumbnail/mermaid-logo-horizontal-1.svg" alt="" /></div></a></figure><p>Het is a flowchart example. Textual script on the left, graphical output on the right.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/Mermaid-Graph---FlowChart-example.jpg" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="1920" height="1080" srcset="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/Mermaid-Graph---FlowChart-example.jpg 600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1000/2026/01/Mermaid-Graph---FlowChart-example.jpg 1000w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1600/2026/01/Mermaid-Graph---FlowChart-example.jpg 1600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/Mermaid-Graph---FlowChart-example.jpg 1920w" /></figure><p></p>

Dictation turns speech into text. Conversation works in time. PersonaPlex marks the moment voice AI starts to operate in real-time dialogue.

The idea of a single European company keeps returning. Not because it’s easy, but because Europe keeps running into the same limits.

When the EU says it is building eight quantum computers, the number sounds precise. It isn’t. This piece explores why that question is harder than it looks.

WhatsApp is voor veel bedrijven vooral een communicatiemiddel. Met Channels krijgt het ook publieke reach. Dat verklaart waarom de EU nu meekijkt.

Met usernames laat WhatsApp het telefoonnummer los. Voor gebruikers betekent dat minder delen, voor bedrijven krijgt WhatsApp eindelijk een voorkant.

As I dive deeper into EU AI regulation, ISO 42001 keeps surfacing. This piece explores what it is, how certification works, and why it matters for vendors.

Unlimited data rarely means the same thing twice. At home, abroad, or on eSIMs, the limits shift. This piece maps where they actually are.

We talk about unlimited data, but most of our digital life quietly depends on fibre. What mobile, roaming and holidays reveal about real limits.

In modern cars, text is no longer read but registered. Letters function like icons, designed for saccades, speed, and cognitive restraint.

A Japanese colour book, a digital-first brand, and a late encounter with Pantone led me to finally understand why print colour always felt confusing.

For a long time, I treated Kobo and Kindle as roughly the same thing: e-readers with different ecosystems. Only when I started using them side by side did it become clear that they are built around very different setups. Not different features. Different models. Once you see that, the choice becomes much simpler. ## Two ways of getting content to a reader With Kobo, the device is the centre. You connect it to a computer, copy files onto it, and that’s where they live. The book is on the device, and the device is the destination. The cloud, if you use it at all, is secondary. With Kindle, the account is the centre. You don’t really put files on the device. You send them into Amazon’s system, and the device pulls them down. The book lives in the cloud first. The Kindle is one of several ways to read it. That single difference explains most of the experience. ## Kobo: device-first, edge-based Kobo works best when you treat it like a quiet, durable object. You put books on it deliberately. They stay there. Reading position and annotations live on the device. With tools like Calibre, you can run it almost entirely outside Kobo’s ecosystem. It has more friction. Often a cable. Often a computer. But that friction fits long-term reading. It assumes you care about the book, want to keep it, and might return to it. Kobo feels like a library. Connecting My Kobo Directly to an iPhone 16 ProI connected my Kobo e‑reader to my iPhone 16 Pro with a USB‑C cable. It worked instantly. No adapter, no fuss but just a quiet moment of satisfaction.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers ## Kindle: account-first, cloud-operated Kindle works best when you treat it like a service. You send documents to your account. They appear wirelessly. They sync across devices. You read them, and you can remove them again without much ceremony. That makes it ideal for: * PDFs * Reports * Business books * Things you read once or twice It also means you depend on Amazon being there. The system only really works because Amazon operates it end to end. Kindle feels like an inbox. Reading Webpages on Your Kindle: A Simplified ProcessReading online articles on your Kindle made easy: follow our steps to simplify, convert, and transfer webpages from iPhone effortlessly.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers ## One extra thing that matters: screens Kindle is not just an e-ink reader. It’s a delivery system. The same document can be read: * On e-ink, quietly and with low energy use * On a phone or tablet, with colour and zoom * On a desktop screen, where layout really matters That is especially useful for professional PDFs. Many of them are designed visually, with columns, charts, and typography doing part of the work. With Kindle, you can switch between those forms without changing how the document is delivered. Kobo doesn’t really do that. There, the device _is_ the destination. ## Where I landed Once I stopped trying to make one device do everything, it became obvious. * Books I want to keep live on the Kobo. * Documents and work-related reading go to the Kindle. Kobo is where books stay. Kindle is where documents pass through. The devices didn’t change. My expectations did. * * * Electronic paper and digital ink explainedWhy are electronic paper and digital ink so gentle to the eyes and why is it that these screen consume so little energy.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers

AI literacy rarely shows up as a skill gap. It appears when organisations need to justify decisions, manage risk, and remain accountable.

When I looked back at the words that kept appearing in my work this year, one stood out more than I expected: _model_. Not because it felt central or dramatic, but because it was everywhere. In AI, obviously. In strategy documents. In conversations about organisations, processes, responsibility. Even in fairly ordinary moments. The word kept resurfacing, quietly doing work. At some point I realised I was using it constantly without really stopping to think what I meant by it. And the more I tried to pin it down, the more elusive it became. Not vague, but flexible. Almost suspiciously so. This piece is an attempt to understand that flexibility. Not to define _model_ , but to ask: how did we get here, and why does this word fit so many domains so well? 2025 Wordcloud for my blog ## The everyday meanings we hardly notice If you search for _model_ , you will likely land on fashion models first. Photo models. People. That might seem like a distraction, but it is actually a useful starting point. A model here is an example. Something you look at in order to orient yourself. This is what it looks like. This is what it could be. We use the word like this all the time. A role model. A model student. A model answer. In all these cases, the model is not a description of reality, but a reference point. It reduces complexity by embodiment. Instead of rules or explanations, you get an instance you can copy, approximate, or respond to. Alongside this, there is another everyday sense that feels more abstract. Scale models. Maps. Diagrams. Calendars. Dashboards. These are not things you imitate, but things you use to navigate. They deliberately leave things out so you can act. A map is not the territory, but it is still indispensable. Already, the word is doing two different jobs: showing what something looks like, and helping you move through complexity. That tension turns out to be important. ## A small detour into etymology The word _model_ comes from the Latin _modulus_ , a diminutive of _modus_. _Modus_ means measure, manner, way, method. Not an object, but a way of doing something. A pattern that makes action possible. _Modulus_ is a small measure. A manageable unit. This matters more than it might seem. From the start, a model was not meant to be the world in miniature, but a chosen scale. A way of handling something too large, too complex, or too messy to grasp directly. A model is already an admission: we cannot deal with everything at once. That quietly underpins almost every use of the word today. Model - Etymology, Origin & Meaning“likeness made to scale; architect’s set of designs,” from French modelle (16c., Modern… See origin and meaning of model.etymonline ## Two paths that never really split Historically, _model_ developed along two closely related paths. On the one hand, the model **as exemplar**. A sculpture model. A pose. A prototype. Something you look at and emulate. On the other hand, the model **as representation**. A plan, a sketch, a proportional guide. Something that captures relationships rather than appearance. These were never cleanly separated. A sculptor’s model was both something you looked at and something you built from. It guided action without claiming to be the final thing. That dual role has always been there. The confusion around _model_ today is not new. It is inherited. ## From craft to science When science and mathematics adopted the word, they did not change its meaning so much as tighten it. A mathematical model is a reduction of reality, expressed in symbols, designed to preserve certain relationships while ignoring others. An economic model does the same with incentives, behaviour, and constraints. These models are explicit about what they leave out. They are tools for thinking, not claims to completeness. This is why scientific models are always accompanied by assumptions, boundaries, and caveats. Not because they are weak, but because their strength lies precisely in being limited. They help you see a system. They do not pretend to be it. ## When models start to build things Engineering shifts the balance. Here, models are no longer only aids to understanding. They become instruments of construction. A blueprint is a model. A data schema is a model. A software architecture is a model. **Change the model, and you change the system.** At this point, the model stops being merely epistemic and becomes operative. Errors are no longer just misleading. They propagate. This is where the stakes rise, and where the word _model_ starts carrying real authority. Not because it is more accurate, but because it has consequences. ## Language models sit on the fault line This long history helps explain why _model_ feels so overloaded in AI. A language model brings all these meanings together. It is a statistical reduction of language, trained rather than reasoned into existence. It produces exemplars: plausible sentences, answers, styles. It is deployed as an operational system. And it is used by people as a way to explore, understand, and make sense of domains. It is, at the same time: something that generates behaviour, and something we use to think with. This collapses an old distinction between models that help us see systems and models that are systems. No wonder the word feels unstable here. It is being asked to do everything at once. Much of the current confusion around AI is not technical, but semantic. We slide between treating the model as a tool for exploration and treating it as an authority. Between using it as a map and mistaking it for the territory. The word _model_ quietly enables that slide. Model Cards, System Cards and What They’re Quietly BecomingWhat are AI model cards, and why are they becoming the documents regulators will turn to first? I read a few and it taught me more than I expected.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers ## Why this word keeps appearing Looking back, I think this explains why _model_ surfaced so often for me this year. It is a word that allows us to work with complexity without fully resolving it. It lets us act, decide, and build while acknowledging that what we are doing is partial and provisional. At the same time, it carries a risk. A model can easily stop being a choice and start feeling like reality. Especially once it is embedded in systems, dashboards, policies, or software. The problem is rarely the model itself. It is forgetting that it is a model. Seen this way, _model_ is not just a technical term, but a cultural one. It sits at the boundary between understanding and authority, between representation and action. That is probably why it is almost everywhere now. And why it is worth pausing over, at least once, to ask what we are really doing when we invoke it. Not to pin the word down, but to keep it honest.

A viral US video warns against debit cards. The real difference, however, lies in how direct debit works in America versus Europe, and why that matters.

Last Friday, Paris Buttfield-Addison posted 20 Years of Digital Life, Gone in an Instant, thanks to Apple, which kind of blew up. > A major brick-and-mortar store sold an Apple Gift Card that Apple seemingly took offence to, and locked out my entire Apple ID, effectively bricking my devices and my iCloud Account, Apple Developer ID, and everything associated with it, and I have no recourse. Yeah, effectively, they got a $500 Apple gift card, tried to add it to their account, and this triggered a high enough severity fraud alert in Apple's system that it automatically locked their Apple account. Not good. The post is a good reminder of how tied to these large companies we really are. I assume most people reading this post have an Apple account, and it's a good exercise to consider how much of your digital life would become inaccessible if you suddenly lost access to that account. Would you lose all your photos? All of your contacts? All of your files? Obviously, the odds of you losing access to your Apple account are exceptionally low, and Buttfield-Addison's experience is the exception, but I think it is a good reminder that completely benign behavior can occasionally lead to serious consequences you would not see coming. This leads me to three main thoughts on the topic. First, companies like Apple and Google have over 1 billion users, and their automated systems are likely correct far more often than they are wrong, and I don't think they need to go away. However, a good appeals process is necessary to have, and what happened in this person's case is not ideal. How would someone without a blog and ability to reach an audience have gotten this solved? Second, when you're locked out of your Apple ID, you should be able to download effectively everything from your account. This would mean that if I was locked out of my Apple ID, maybe I wouldn't be able to use it or add new data to that account. But if I still was able to authenticate, I should be able to download my photos, my files, and other relevant information that I may want to get out. This would make it so that even if I wasn't able to get the attention that this person did and resolve the issue, at least I could still get a backup of my information. And third, I strongly think that everyone should have some level of redundancy in as much of their digital life as they can. Photos are the big one that I think everyone should be considering. A lot of the things on my computer can be replaced or recreated if they're lost, but not my photos; I can never recreate those moments that I've captured. I personally treat Apple Photos as my de facto photo library, and it works great, but for many years, I had Google Photos also backing up those images, which gave me a second online backup. In the event that my Apple ID was locked, I would still have all of my photos in Google. Since getting a Synology NAS last year, I've actually switched that to having the Synology Photos app automatically back up my photo library to the NAS so that I have local access to all of my photos. Now those photos aren't tied to any online account, they're literally on a hard drive in my house. Consider what's important to you and figure out a solution that works for you. * * * This story has a happy ending, with Buttfield-Addison posting an update yesterday: > We’re back! A lovely man from Singapore, working for Apple Executive Relations, who has been calling me every so often for a couple of days, has let me know it’s all fixed. It looks like the gift card I tried to redeem, which did not work for me, and did not credit my account, was already redeemed in some way (sounds like classic gift card tampering), and my account was caught by that. Obviously it’s unacceptable that this can happen, and I’m still trying to get more information out of him, but at least things are now mostly working. Great news, but again, would someone without a blog and a few thousand social media followers have been able to get here? I don't know…

From GDPR to the EU AI Act, a recurring pattern emerges: European regulation lands in procurement, spreading responsibility, caution, and friction.

AI can make true pixel edits, but many image “fixes” work by reconstruction. Typography and colourisation expose where rebuilding replaces editing.

AI can make true pixel edits, but many image “fixes” work by reconstruction. Typography and colourisation expose where rebuilding replaces editing.

A continuation of my exploration of digital payments, looking at how different layers relate and how the Mollie–GoCardless story helps illuminate the broader picture.