My guess is that it means that not only does "Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy" write her quotes with AI without reading them carefully, but that she's also doing it with an older model.
I think it’s pretty clear if you read the rest of the sentence, which you’ve omitted: “and the fourth most powerful in the world”. If she hadn’t said “in Europe”, the whole top 3 might be in Europe as well.
I believe this refers to the fact that, before Jupiter, the most powerful computer in Europe was HPC6, which is owned by Eni S.p.A, a private company, and the following most powerful computer was the Alps system, located in Switzerland.
So, in this context, this new supercomputer is owned by Europe, “the public” and it’s located in the European Union sovereignty within Europe, the continent.
Edit:
I found the full quote in the website of the Jülich Development Center and I guess it makes sense why it was editorialized for the eu-wide website.
“This is a historic milestone. With JUPITER, Europe is reaching the highest level of high-performance computing. JUPITER is also a testimony for Germany's long leadership in HPC. Today, it became the home of the most powerful computer in Europe and the fourth most powerful in the world. From European perspective, JUPITER is a pioneer. It shows that when we combine national vision with European cooperation, we can achieve global excellence.”
Your Top 500 link says something completely different:
"The 65th edition of the TOP500 showed that the El Capitan system retains the No. 1 position. With El Capitan, Frontier, and Aurora, there are now 3 Exascale systems leading the TOP500. All three are installed at Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories in the United States."
HPC6 is listed below those, and far less powerful.
Yes, but that fact does nothing to make the statement in question more sensible, so I don't know why you bothered to point it out, or to emphasize the "HPC6 [is] in Italy which is definitely in Europe" aspect. (Although I don't think the statement in question was all that nonsensical to begin with — IMO, it was just inartfully phrased.)
Maybe they wanted to say “with [JUPITER, Europe],” as in “CERN, Switzerland.” This would still be unnecessary and confusing, but that’s the most sense I can make of it.
> a 21 Petabyte Flash Module (ExaFLASH) is provided based on the IBM Storage Scale
Nice. How much does this cost?
> The scratch storage is based on 20 IBM Storage Scale 6000 systems utilizing NVMe disk technology, based on the IBM Storage Scale solution. With 29 PB of raw and 21 PB of useable capacity
Don't know why your're downvoted, this is valid criticism. EU just bought 500 mil worth of hardware from the US, no specific European innovation, apart from system management (ParTec Italy). But would be happy to be proven otherwise.
China with SMIC and Huawei's Ascend 910C would be an example of what you do if you want to pursue strategic autonomy. It's like asking "who exactly were you going to buy a 6th generation fighter from?"
Until a year ago, few thought there would ever be a need for Europe to have strategic autonomy from the US in an area that was already solved by trade agreements. Presumably this project was conceived long before that.
Without questioning this idea on political grounds, I am not sure if it would be at all possible for an Ascend 910C cluster to enter the supercomputer rankings. I could not find a public datasheet on this chip (would appreciate a link), but my impression is that it is an AI accelerator that does not target FP64, whereas TOP500 is looking at HPC (FP64) performance [1].
Which was delayed 2 years. I’m speculating this was supposed to be mostly or exclusively this but they needed a computer now. Or needed to spend the budget now.
So US supercomputers aren’t an achievement because they just bought chips from Taiwan and those aren’t also an achievement because they bought photolithography machines from ASML in Europe?
Since when are supercomputers anything other than just the ability to afford a lot of hardware?
To be fair, being "just" a big Nvidia installation doesn't really mean that it's "so simple" (person you're replying to didn't claim it was simple), considering that every "Nvidia installation" has a slightly different set of factors like node count, per node memory, CPU choice, and networking configuration. All it says is, like many (most?) other modern supercomputers, it's a giant NVIDIA GPU cluster.
What does that mean?