Advertisement · 728 × 90

Posts by Rob Hoeijmakers

Preview
Welk Claude-abonnement past bij jouw gebruik? Een vriend vroeg me welk Claude-abonnement hij moest nemen. Hij had de prijspagina van Anthropic bekeken en stond verwarder dan daarvoor. Ik snap waarom. De indeling van Claude-abonnementen is niet ontworpen rondom een herkenbaar werkpatroon. Pro, Max, Teams — het zijn lagen, geen verhalen. Toch is de keuze minder ingewikkeld dan hij lijkt, als je weet waar je op moet letten. ## Pro als basis Pro is het instapabonnement voor dagelijks gebruik. Schrijven, analyseren, onderzoek, lichte automatisering. De meeste ondernemers die Claude serieus inzetten, komen hier mee door. Er zit een dagelijks gebruikslimiet op, en een wekelijks limiet. Wie niet constant tegen die grenzen aanloopt, heeft aan Pro genoeg. Wat veel mensen niet weten: bij Pro kun je een apart tegoed opladen als aanvulling. Als je de dagelijkse limiet bereikt, schakelt Claude automatisch over op dat tegoedbudget, zonder onderbreking. Je betaalt dan per verbruik, bovenop het vaste maandbedrag. Voor wie af en toe een drukke dag heeft maar niet structureel, is dat goedkoper dan doorupgraden naar Max. ## Max voor constant gebruik Max-abonnementen zijn er in twee varianten, die van elkaar verschillen in hoeveel berichten je per dag kunt sturen. Wie dagelijks intensief werkt met Claude, meerdere projecten tegelijk bijhoudt of lange documentsessies heeft, merkt bij Pro de grenzen sneller. Max geeft meer capaciteit voor een vaste prijs. Voor wie wacht op specifieke features die nog komen, of denkt dat een vroeg abonnement op termijn voordeel oplevert, is Max ook een overweging. Anthropic heeft de gewoonte om Pro-features eerst beschikbaar te stellen aan betalende gebruikers, en hogere plannen doorgaans eerder. ## Modelkeuze maakt ook uit Binnen elk abonnement kies je welk model je gebruikt. Sonnet en Opus zijn de twee hoofdopties. Opus is het krachtigere model en kost meer per sessie. De reflex om altijd voor het krachtigste te gaan is begrijpelijk, maar voor de meeste taken is Sonnet voldoende. Het verschil merk je pas bij complexe, meerlagige vraagstukken. Het is niet de instelling die het meeste kost, maar de gewoonte om hem te gebruiken voor dingen die niet zo zwaar hoeven te zijn. ## API-credits zijn apart Wie Claude ook via de API wil gebruiken, voor tools, scripts of integraties, betaalt daarvoor apart. API-credits staan los van het claude.ai-abonnement: het ene dekt het andere niet. Dat is verwarrend totdat je beseft dat het twee aparte producten zijn: de webinterface enerzijds, het platform voor ontwikkelaars anderzijds. Voor ondernemers die niets bouwen en Claude uitsluitend via de chat gebruiken, is dit niet relevant. ## Waar het op neerkomt Gebruik Claude een paar weken op Pro. Let op waar de grenzen vallen, niet op papier, maar in jouw werkdag. Als je regelmatig halverwege de middag stokt, schakel dan op. Als je dat nooit hebt, blijf dan zitten. De beste indeling staat niet op de prijspagina. Die staat in je eigen gebruik. 💡 Claude heeft ook een Teams-abonnement voor organisaties. Dat voegt beheer en gedeelde projecten toe. Voor zelfstandigen en kleine bedrijven is het persoonlijke Pro-abonnement met losse credits in de meeste gevallen de kostenefficiëntere keuze, maar ik heb er persoonlijk geen ervaring mee. * * * Van gratis naar betaald: hoe kies je het juiste AI-model voor je organisatieVeel bedrijven experimenteren met gratis AI-modellen, maar voor structureel gebruik gelden andere eisen. Wat zijn de juiste keuzes voor Nederlandse organisaties?Chat voor bedrijvenRob HoeijmakersDiepgaand onderzoek versus agentmodus in ChatGPTBeide modi binnen ChatGPT lijken te “denken”, maar één begint met “doen”. Een verkenning van de stille overgang van analyse naar operatie in alledaagse AI-tools.Chat voor bedrijvenRob HoeijmakersWat ChatGPT Personal en Business echt onderscheidt: context, geheugen en ontwerpChatGPT Business werkt fundamenteel anders dan de persoonlijke variant. Niet qua functies, maar in hoe context en geheugen bewust zijn afgebakend.Chat voor bedrijvenRob Hoeijmakers

Pro, Max of losse API-credits: de keuze hangt niet af van de prijspagina, maar van hoe jij met Claude werkt. Een praktisch overzicht.

3 days ago 2 1 0 0
Preview
The EU Age Verification App Was Designed to Be Distrusted The announcement slide said "NO TRACEABILITY" in large capitals on a blue background ringed with gold stars. The Threads comment section replied: "How do we verify children, ah yes let's make big database of all people." The architecture is the opposite of a database. The communication guaranteed nobody would notice. Left LinkedIn, right Threads. ## What they built The Age Verification App is a "mini wallet," built on the same technical foundation as the forthcoming EU Digital Identity Wallet. When a platform requests age verification, the app generates a cryptographic proof derived from a credential issued by a national identity authority. The platform receives one binary answer: over 18, or not. No name, no date of birth, no address. The underlying identity data never leaves your device. The same mechanism works offline. At a festival gate, a bar, a tobacconist. You present your wallet, the venue's device gets a yes or no, and sees nothing else. Most adults have handed a passport to a bouncer to prove they are old enough to enter, giving a stranger full sight of their identity because the system had no finer instrument. This changes that. The credential is cryptographically bound to the issuing device. It cannot be copied or handed to someone else; the proof would fail. The weak point is onboarding: if someone sets up a wallet using another person's ID document, the credential reflects that person's age. A process problem, not a cryptographic one. 💡 The blueprint is open source at ageverification.dev. Six member states including France, Spain, and Denmark are currently in pilot. A second version, released October 2025, adds passport and ID card onboarding alongside eID. ## Two failures, one root cause The Commission made two distinct mistakes, and they compound each other. The first is aesthetic. Blue backgrounds, gold stars, caps-lock claims. This is the design language of an institutional poster, activating exactly the distrust it was meant to address. Design communicates before words do. A system built on cryptographic privacy, dressed in the visual language of state surveillance, loses the argument before it starts. Estonia's e-Residency programme, adjacent identity infrastructure, answered three questions before anything else: what is it, who is it for, how do I get one. The second is structural. "The European Age Verification App is ready" is product language. It implies: find it, download it, use it. What actually launched is an open-source blueprint that member states can adapt, currently in pilot in six countries, dependent on national identity infrastructure that varies by country, with no App Store link, no rollout date, no answer to the question any citizen would ask: what do I actually do with this, and when? Both failures share a root. The Commission framed this entirely as a child protection measure. "It is for parents to raise their children. Not platforms." Every word is defensive. It excludes every adult who benefits from not uploading a passport scan to access a service, or not handing their full identity to a bouncer at a festival. The genuine upside, comfort, convenience, less data exposed in daily life, went unspoken. It is for parents to raise their children. Not platforms. The European Age Verification App is ready. It will allow users to prove their age when accessing online platforms. Just like shops ask for… | European Commission | 48 commentsIt is for parents to raise their children. Not platforms. The European Age Verification App is ready. It will allow users to prove their age when accessing online platforms. Just like shops ask for proof of age for people buying alcoholic beverages. And it ticks all the boxes: ✅ Highest privacy standards in the world ✅ Works on any device ✅ Easy to use ✅ Fully open source More info: https://lnkd.in/dXQeA6Kx | 48 comments on LinkedInLinkedInThierry Thevenet ## The real circumvention problem The Threads commenter who noted "VPNs are also ready" was pointing at something real, though not quite in the way they meant. The cryptographic proof cannot be spoofed or transferred. But a VPN that makes a user appear to browse from outside EU jurisdiction sidesteps the obligation to verify at all. The circumvention is not of the architecture; it is of the enforcement. This is a DSA problem, not a technical one. Whether platforms are compelled to integrate the system, and whether that compulsion reaches beyond EU borders, are open questions the announcement did not address. The blueprint closes one circumvention route. Jurisdiction closes another only if enforcement follows. ## The unlaunched product The technical work is done, and it is genuinely good. What has not started is the communication work: framing this around the adult user who wants to prove their age without surrendering their identity. That person also happens to satisfy the DSA, protect children, and reduce platform liability. The upside was always there. The Commission chose not to use it. A system designed to preserve privacy should not have to overcome the impression that it destroys it. That gap is not a technical problem. It is a choice. * * * Understanding Digital Identity in the EU: eID, eIDAS, and the EUDI WalletThis article serves as a reference point for further discussions on digital identity, authentication, and legitimisation in the EU.Rob HoeijmakersRob HoeijmakersWero: Europe’s new payment brandWero is Europe’s bid for payment sovereignty: pay across borders with just an email or phone number, without relying on US networks.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers

The EU Age Verification App is technically sound and communicated all wrong. It buried the upside, led with fear, and launched a framework as a product.

3 days ago 3 3 0 0
Preview
The article I couldn't write I read a news article last week about Amsterdam asking data centres to reserve space for European clients. Something bothered me about it. I opened a new document and started writing. Three days later I had notes for three separate pieces, none of them finished, and a growing suspicion that the thing bothering me was not what I thought it was. ## The split The first article was about category errors. The piece conflated continuity, confidentiality and security, three distinct problems that require different interventions. I wrote that one fairly quickly. It felt satisfying in the way that corrections always feel satisfying, precise, a little superior. I set it aside. The second article was about Amsterdam specifically. The city at the centre of European internet infrastructure, home to one of the world's largest internet exchange points, that spent years fighting data centres and now finds itself asking the ones it allowed to hold space for European clients. The irony was clean. Too clean, maybe. I set that one aside too. The third article was the one I actually wanted to write. It was about the NIMBY problem. How the cities most anxious about digital sovereignty are the ones most aggressively preventing the infrastructure sovereignty requires. How we export our data centres the same way we export our waste: to somewhere poorer, somewhere with weaker rules, somewhere that lacks the political capital to refuse. And how the people who campaigned against the incinerator keep producing rubbish, just without having to look at it. That one felt true. But it also felt incomplete. Because the NIMBY argument is still a solutions argument. It still assumes we know where we are going and just need to remove the obstacles. And I am no longer sure we know where we are going. ## The habit underneath Here is what I kept circling back to. Digital dependency on American infrastructure is not a procurement failure. It formed the way habits form: for real reasons, over time, because it kept making sense. The services were good. The prices were low. The integration was seamless. You did not end up here through weakness or inattention. You ended up here because it worked, and kept working, until the geopolitics shifted and suddenly the habit was visible in a way it had not been before. The recovery metaphor is useful up to a point. You make a policy. You change the default at each renewal. You take some things in-house. You support European alternatives even when they are not quite as good. I have done some of this in my own practice. Not the hard parts yet. The core productivity stack is still there. I tell myself I am waiting for the right moment, which is probably true and probably also a rationalisation. But recovery assumes you know what you are recovering toward. What does a healthy relationship with digital infrastructure look like? What does a European digital society actually feel like, cost, require? Those questions do not have clean answers. And the conversation keeps avoiding them, because solutions are easier to talk about than destinations. ## Where we were going We built the digital world we built because we were optimising for something. Speed. Convenience. Scale. Price. The platforms that won were the ones that removed friction fastest and charged least. We did not ask, collectively, what we were giving up or where we were heading. We just went. Individuals, companies, governments, all of us, at different speeds, in the same direction. Now the direction is contested. And the response, ten-year strategies, cloud alliances, rack space negotiations, is still being framed as a logistics problem. How do we get from here to sovereignty? What are the steps, the phases, the milestones? I keep wanting to ask a prior question. Sovereignty for what? A European digital society organised around what values, what trade-offs, what vision of what we owe each other and what we want to keep private and what we are willing to share? That conversation is not happening at the policy level. It is barely happening at the cultural level. And without it, the logistics question has no real answer, because you cannot plot a route to a destination you have not named. ## The unfinished document So I have three unfinished articles and this one, which is about why I could not finish them. I think the honest position is this. The sovereignty conversation is real and urgent and I take it seriously. I am also not sure the vocabulary we have for it is adequate to the actual problem, which is less about infrastructure than about intention. Less about where the servers are than about what kind of digital life we are trying to build, and for whom, and under whose rules, and whether we are willing to pay what it costs. I do not have an answer to that. I am not sure anyone does right now. But I think it is the question sitting underneath all the other questions, and I wanted to at least put it on the page. The three articles will probably get written eventually. This one needed to come first. * * * The Paradox of Sovereignty: Europe’s Search for Freedom in a Connected WorldThe EU talks about digital sovereignty as independence, yet its strength still depends on shared systems, U.S. clouds, and global code.Rob HoeijmakersRob HoeijmakersThe AI Continuity ProblemAI is load-bearing in my company. That creates a new kind of business risk: what happens when access breaks, gets priced out, or gets cut off?Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers

I tried to write about digital sovereignty. The piece kept splitting into three. That splitting, I think, is the actual story.

5 days ago 3 3 0 0
Preview
Leuven's quiet superpower: imec I visited Leuven last year. Beautiful city, perfectly preserved, Gothic town hall, students everywhere. On its edge I walked past a modern building with the name imec on it. It looked serious. I had no idea what it was. Turns out it might be one of the most strategically important buildings in the global semiconductor industry. ## Nobody's chip company Imec employs researchers from over a hundred countries and holds no manufacturing lines of its own. It is, by design, nobody's chip company. That turns out to be the point. In 1984, the Flemish regional government did something unusual. It didn't attract a semiconductor manufacturer, or subsidise an existing one. It funded a research commons: a neutral laboratory where competitors could work on shared problems without handing advantage to a rival. The founding team were young researchers, several of them returned from Silicon Valley, backed by a government willing to think in decades rather than quarters. They called the ambition a SuperLab. It became imec. ## The paradox Most technology clusters form around an anchor company: ASML in Eindhoven, ARM in Cambridge. Leuven built the infrastructure first and let the ecosystem follow. Because Belgium had no dominant chip producer to protect, imec could be structurally neutral. Intel, Samsung, TSMC and others could collaborate there without the research benefiting a direct competitor. The absence of a national champion was the founding condition for a global one. ## Nine days ago That neutrality is now carrying serious weight. On March 18, imec announced the installation of the ASML EXE:5200: the most advanced lithography machine in existence, one of fewer than a dozen available anywhere in the world, valued at $400 million. It sits in imec's cleanroom in Leuven, available to the global ecosystem of chip makers, materials suppliers and research partners. Not owned by one company. Shared, on neutral ground, to accelerate what comes next. The machine targets sub-2nm chip development, territory that doesn't yet exist in commercial production. Imec receives the world’s most advanced High NA EUV system | imecA major milestone in propelling industry into the angstrom era.imec Forty years after the SuperLab idea, the logic holds. Europe doesn't manufacture the world's leading chips. But it owns two of the choke points that make those chips possible: ASML builds the only machines capable of printing them, and imec is where the industry learns how to use what comes next. ## Invention, not policy What did the Flemish government actually build in 1984? A research institute, formally. But the design choices, non-profit structure, university roots, enforced neutrality, long time horizons, were not incidental. They were the product. Imec works because of what it was prevented from becoming as much as what it was built to be. That's closer to invention than policy. The EU Chips Act is now directing billions toward semiconductor capacity across Europe, and imec sits at the centre of it. But imec's CEO Luc Van den Hove is more cautious than the policy framing suggests: allied collaboration, not autarky. The chip supply chain is too interdependent to be repatriated. What Leuven has can't be replicated by a funding announcement. It took forty years to build, and required above all the discipline not to turn it into something else along the way. 💡 Imec stands for Interuniversity Microelectronics Centre — in Dutch: Interuniversitair Micro-Electronica Centrum. Founded in 1984 as an autonomous non-profit, spun out of KU Leuven, one of Europe's oldest universities. They officially style the name in lowercase: imec. * * * How ZEISS and ASML Enable the Modern Chip IndustryFrom Dutch roots to German optics, ASML and ZEISS built a unique European stronghold in chipmaking. Where light carves the future.Rob HoeijmakersRob HoeijmakersStrengthening Europe’s Semiconductor Backbone: The Role of ESMCTSMC’s first European plant in Dresden, a €10 billion venture with Bosch, Infineon, and NXP, will enhance Europe’s semiconductor industry. Supported by the European Chips Act.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers

Imec in Leuven just received the world's most advanced chip machine. The story of how a small Flemish city became a global semiconductor choke point starts in 1984.

3 weeks ago 2 1 0 0
Preview
Nederlandse Arbeidsmarkt & AI Blootstelling 114 beroepsgroepen · 9,7M werkenden · AI-blootstelling gescoord door Claude op ESCO-omschrijvingen

Een kaart (treemap) voor AI-blootstelling van de Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt.

Ik kreeg veel enthousiaste reacties van ouders, studenten en beleidsmakers want het helpt met richting vinden.

Mij viel op hoezeer NL eigenlijk een dienstenland is. nljobs.hoeijmakers.net

1 month ago 0 0 0 0
Preview
Waarom werknemers hun persoonlijke administratie op het werk doen Er duikt regelmatig een opvallende statistiek op in onderzoek naar werk en productiviteit: werknemers besteden gemiddeld **ongeveer 90 minuten per dag** aan hun eigen administratie. Belastingzaken. Afspraken regelen. Verzekeringen aanpassen. Formulieren invullen. Accounts herstellen. Vaak gebeurt dat gewoon tussendoor, tijdens werktijd. Voor werkgevers lijkt dat in eerste instantie een productiviteitsprobleem. Maar het kan ook een aanwijzing zijn dat er iets anders speelt: dat onze digitale systemen verrassend veel frictie bevatten. ## Waarom persoonlijke administratie zo veel tijd kost Veel administratieve taken zijn inhoudelijk helemaal niet zo ingewikkeld. Het gaat meestal om relatief eenvoudige handelingen: een formulier invullen, een wijziging doorgeven, een afspraak maken. Toch voelen deze processen vaak complex en tijdrovend. Dat komt omdat digitale administratie zelden uit één handeling bestaat. Het is meestal een reeks stappen: * de juiste website vinden * door verschillende schermen navigeren * documenten verzamelen * informatie invoeren * foutmeldingen oplossen En bijna altijd speelt er nog iets anders mee: **digitale identiteit**. ## Eén account, één persoon Vrijwel alle digitale diensten zijn gebouwd rond hetzelfde uitgangspunt: **één account – één persoon – één operator.** Daarom bestaan er wachtwoorden, sms-codes, two-factor authentication, biometrische verificatie en apparaatcontroles. Vanuit veiligheid is dat begrijpelijk. Systemen moeten zeker weten dat degene die iets doet ook daadwerkelijk de eigenaar van het account is. Maar dat ontwerp heeft ook een keerzijde. In het dagelijks leven handelen mensen voortdurend namens elkaar. Partners helpen elkaar met administratie. Kinderen regelen zaken voor hun ouders. Vrienden of collega’s helpen met formulieren. Online werkt dat vaak minder soepel. ## Delegatie wordt administratie Waar iemand in het dagelijks leven simpelweg kan zeggen: “Kun jij dit even regelen?”, ontstaat online al snel een reeks extra stappen. Mandaten. Autorisaties. Nieuwe accounts. Verificatiecodes. Delegatie verandert zo gemakkelijk in een extra administratief proces. Dat helpt misschien verklaren waarom veel mensen hun persoonlijke administratie juist op het werk doen. Daar zitten ze toch al achter een computer, hebben ze documenten bij de hand en kunnen ze stap voor stap door het proces gaan. Het zegt dus niet alleen iets over gedrag, maar ook over hoe digitale systemen zijn ontworpen. ## Een ontwerpprobleem van het internet Wat hier zichtbaar wordt, is een kleine maar fundamentele spanning. Het internet is sterk ontworpen rond **individuele identiteit**. Het dagelijks leven functioneert juist vaak via **samenwerking en delegatie**. Die twee logica’s botsen regelmatig. En zolang digitale systemen zo sterk gekoppeld blijven aan individuele accounts en persoonlijke verificatie, blijft administratie moeilijk te vereenvoudigen of uit te besteden. Niet alleen voor mensen. Maar ook voor technologie. ## Een interessante vraag voor de toekomst Dit maakt persoonlijke administratie op werktijd misschien minder verrassend dan het lijkt. Het is niet alleen een kwestie van discipline of tijdsmanagement. Het kan ook een signaal zijn dat onze digitale infrastructuur nog niet goed aansluit op hoe mensen hun leven organiseren. Waar frictie zit, ontstaan vaak nieuwe ideeën en oplossingen. Maar voordat die oplossingen er zijn, is het misschien eerst de moeite waard om het onderliggende probleem goed te begrijpen: hoe digitale identiteit en delegatie zich tot elkaar verhouden. Daar zou weleens een belangrijk ontwerpthema voor de komende jaren kunnen liggen.

Werknemers besteden opvallend veel tijd aan hun eigen administratie tijdens werktijd. Dat zegt misschien minder over gedrag dan over hoe digitale systemen zijn ontworpen.

1 month ago 1 1 0 0
Preview
The Delegation Problem of the Internet But a surprising amount of modern work is not limited by knowledge, tools, or intelligence. It is limited by identity. The small rituals of logging in, confirming codes, verifying accounts, and proving, **again and again** , that you are you. ## Quick takeaways * Many digital systems assume that **only the account holder can act**. * Real life, however, runs on **delegation** : partners, colleagues, assistants, children, caregivers. * Two-factor authentication and identity checks make delegation difficult or impossible. * The result is a hidden productivity drain: **identity management work**. * The same constraint also limits what AI agents can actually do. ## The delegation gap In ordinary life, people constantly act on behalf of others. A partner renews insurance. A child handles paperwork for parents. An assistant arranges travel or contracts. A colleague submits documents. This is not exceptional behaviour. It is how daily life functions. Yet most digital systems assume something else entirely: one account, one person, one operator. Security systems reinforce this assumption. Passwords, two-factor authentication, biometrics, device verification. Each action requires the account holder to appear and confirm themselves. This works well for security. But it quietly breaks something else: **delegation**. ## Identity work Because of this design, a surprising part of modern life is spent performing small identity rituals. Logging in. Entering codes. Approving notifications. Verifying devices. These steps are individually trivial. Collectively they form a kind of invisible labour. You might call it **identity work**. It is the administrative layer that sits between intention and action. ## The AI paradox This constraint also explains something curious about AI. AI systems are increasingly capable of planning, analysing, and organising tasks. In principle they could handle many everyday administrative jobs. But they usually cannot. Not because they lack intelligence. Because they lack **authorised identity**. The real systems where action happens, _banks, government portals, insurers, utilities_ , are locked behind personal authentication. So the human remains the final operator, approving and executing steps that machines could otherwise handle. ## When delegation becomes administration Some systems attempt to support delegation through formal mandates or authorisations. But these often turn delegation itself into another administrative task: registering permissions, managing expiry dates, renewing access codes. The effort required to delegate can become almost as large as the task being delegated. ## A missing piece of digital infrastructure What seems largely absent from today’s digital world is a simple capability: **safe, temporary, and limited delegation of digital authority.** The ability to say: * this person may manage this account for a period * these actions are allowed, others are not * access can be revoked at any time Corporate IT systems have such mechanisms. Everyday digital services rarely do. ## Closing reflection For decades we have focused on making information easier to access and process. But productivity may increasingly depend on something more mundane: How easily we can **act on behalf of one another** in digital systems. Real life is cooperative. The internet, in many places, still assumes **we operate alone**. While everyone debates hybrid working, many firms are missing the real productivity killer. It’s not where people work. It’s the mental load they bring with them. Is your team working or are they… | Elvis Eckardt RecruitmentWhile everyone debates hybrid working, many firms are missing the real productivity killer. It’s not where people work. It’s the mental load they bring with them. Is your team working or are they quietly “life-adminning” on your payroll? New workplace data suggests the average UK professional now spends up to 90 minutes of the workday dealing with personal admin. Energy suppliers. GP appointments. Insurance renewals. School logistics. The modern workday is increasingly interrupted by the second shift of life management. And in 2026, some forward-thinking UK SMEs are testing a radical fix: Employer-sponsored Life-Admin Support. Instead of another wellbeing webinar or free fruit basket, companies are partnering with concierge services that handle everyday personal admin for employees. Why? Because burnout is increasingly driven by technostress and constant cognitive overload, not just workload. The results from early adopters are interesting: Measurable increases in deep work time, fewer mid-day distractions, lower burnout among mid-career managers In other words, a focus strategy. The most valuable employee benefit might not be a pay rise that gets swallowed by fiscal drag. It might simply be time and mental space. If companies don’t help employees manage their lives they’ll keep doing it during the workday anyway. Curious where people stand on this: Business owners: Would you trade the annual summer party budget for a service that handles your team’s life admin for a year? Employees: What would you value more, a 2% pay rise or a life concierge that gives you your evenings back?LinkedInElvis Eckardt Recruitment

Modern life runs on delegation. Yet most digital systems assume one account, one person, one operator. Passwords and identity checks quietly block automation.

1 month ago 2 2 0 0
Preview
Apple’s Pages, Numbers and Keynote: Strong Tools, Weak Culture ## Quick takeaways * Apple’s productivity apps are technically strong but socially marginal * The iWork identity has faded into a broader creative subscription layer * Core features remain free, premium features signal a freemium shift * Microsoft and Google built institutional gravity; Apple did not * Productivity tools become dominant through shared culture, not design alone ## A quiet repositioning Pages, Numbers and Keynote have always lived quietly inside the Apple ecosystem. Free, preinstalled, stable, and tightly integrated across devices. Recently, Apple refreshed them visually and repositioned them inside its broader creative subscription layer. The old “**iWork** ” framing has largely disappeared. In its place sits a more expansive, creative umbrella. At the same time, subtle freemium dynamics have emerged. Core functionality remains free, but premium templates, content and AI-assisted features sit behind subscription tiers. This is not a radical shift. It is a tonal one. And tone matters. Apple Creator Studio ## Strong tools, thin culture Technically, these apps are not weak. Pages handles most document work with calm elegance. Keynote remains one of the most fluid presentation tools available. Numbers is unconventional but capable. If you are already fully inside the Apple ecosystem, they feel coherent. Sovereign even. But professionally, they remain marginal. No one says, “We are a Pages-based organisation.” The difference is not capability. It is cultural gravity. ## Lock-in without institutional weight Microsoft 365 became dominant because organisations standardised on it. Google Workspace reshaped collaboration norms in the browser. They built certification tracks, compliance layers, administrative tooling, shared templates, training ecosystems. Excel became a language. Docs became a habit. Apple did not build that institutional layer around its productivity suite. The lock-in exists at the hardware and ecosystem level. It does not extend into organisational culture. ## The freemium signal The move toward a broader creative subscription model reinforces this positioning. Freemium works well when tools are personal, creative and modular. It works less well when the goal is institutional standardisation. By placing Pages, Numbers and Keynote inside a creative services story, Apple implicitly signals that these are complements to a creative ecosystem, not competitors in enterprise infrastructure. That may be strategic clarity rather than weakness. 💡 What is ****Apple Creator Studio****? Apple Creator Studio is Apple’s broader creative subscription layer that bundles professional tools such as Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and Pixelmator Pro, while Pages, Numbers and Keynote remain free at their core; certain premium templates, content libraries and AI-assisted features are available within the paid tier, and the older “iWork” branding has largely faded from public positioning, reframing these productivity apps not as a standalone office suite but as part of a wider creative ecosystem. ## The missing identity Apple excels at product identity. The Mac has identity. The iPhone has identity. Final Cut has identity among creators. Pages and Numbers do not. The iWork label once gave them at least a collective name. With that fading, they risk becoming functional utilities rather than cultural artefacts. There is no manifesto for them. No visible professional tribe. No shared productivity philosophy attached to them. Without identity, even strong tools remain peripheral. ## A personal tension There is a quiet temptation to consolidate everything inside the Apple ecosystem. It feels aesthetically coherent and technically integrated. But collaboration reintroduces gravity. Where do your clients work? Where do your peers exchange templates? Where is collective knowledge compounding? That is where culture forms. And productivity without culture rarely becomes dominant. Apple Creator StudioWith an Apple Creator Studio subscription, get intelligent tools in Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and Pixelmator Pro, plus premium productivity content.Apple

Apple’s Pages, Numbers and Keynote are polished and free, yet rarely dominant. The issue may not be features, but culture.

1 month ago 1 1 0 0
Advertisement
Preview
Eén Europese onderneming (EU-INC) <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>

De EU werkt aan EU-INC: een optionele Europese bedrijfsvorm om grensoverschrijdend groeien eenvoudiger te maken. Nog geen wet, wel een duidelijke richting.

2 months ago 4 2 0 0
Preview
From text to diagrams: working with Mermaid <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>

Mermaid turns structured text into diagrams, and back again. A practical look at text-first diagramming, and why it works well with language models.

2 months ago 3 1 0 0
Preview
PersonaPlex marks a shift from dictation to conversation Dictation turns speech into text. Conversation works in time. PersonaPlex marks the moment voice AI starts to operate in real-time dialogue.
2 months ago 3 1 0 0
Preview
Just eight European quantum computers? 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.
3 months ago 1 1 0 0
Preview
Waarom WhatsApp Channels onder de Digital Services Act kunnen vallen WhatsApp is voor veel bedrijven vooral een communicatiemiddel. Met Channels krijgt het ook publieke reach. Dat verklaart waarom de EU nu meekijkt.
3 months ago 1 1 0 0
Preview
WhatsApp: in 2026 van nummers naar namen Met usernames laat WhatsApp het telefoonnummer los. Voor gebruikers betekent dat minder delen, voor bedrijven krijgt WhatsApp eindelijk een voorkant.
3 months ago 3 3 0 0
Preview
Exploring ISO 42001 and AI governance 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.
3 months ago 2 1 0 0
Preview
The limits of “unlimited” mobile data Unlimited data rarely means the same thing twice. At home, abroad, or on eSIMs, the limits shift. This piece maps where they actually are.
3 months ago 1 1 0 0
Preview
Living on data, until you notice it We talk about unlimited data, but most of our digital life quietly depends on fibre. What mobile, roaming and holidays reveal about real limits.
3 months ago 2 1 0 0
Advertisement
Preview
Typography, in motion In modern cars, text is no longer read but registered. Letters function like icons, designed for saccades, speed, and cognitive restraint.
3 months ago 2 1 0 0
Preview
Colour, systems, and the moment it clicked 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.
3 months ago 3 3 0 0
Preview
Kobo and Kindle solve different problems 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
3 months ago 5 3 1 0
Preview
AI literacy: from definition to practice AI literacy rarely shows up as a skill gap. It appears when organisations need to justify decisions, manage risk, and remain accountable.
3 months ago 1 1 0 0
Preview
Word of the year: model 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.
3 months ago 4 3 0 0