Hacker News: Newest [expanded by feedex.net]

Google workspace threatening to block Firefox access

birdculture — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:30:49 +0000

At the time of writing (2026-06-18), Google Workspace appears to be starting to warn users from Firefox that they must use Chrome. This was for a Google Workspace Business Plus account and workspace, from an up to date browser and OS.

At this time, Firefox access still seems to work but I’ve no idea for how long.

Specific warning


Icon indicating that the user may soon lose their access to their account.
Secure your device for safe app access
To help keep your data secure, make sure that your device meets your organisation's security requirements
Next steps
    Download Chrome Browser and sign in with your work account

This was from a webpage with url https://access.workspace.google.com/remediate?urlparams=REDACTED

Screenshot below

Response from Google support

Absolutely nothing useful, repeatedly transferred around and took ages.

Why do I care?

My team need to make sure that their software works in multiple browsers, and I personally prefer using firefox and don’t want to be forced to use Chrome for no discernable benefit.

[ comments ]

Hyundai buys Boston Dynamics

ck2 — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:28:20 +0000

[ comments ]

Hyundai Motor Group is acquiring SoftBank's remaining 9.65% stake in Boston Dynamics for $325 million, completing its full ownership of the robotics company. The deal closes as Boston Dynamics' Atlas humanoid robot enters commercial deployment and the broader humanoid race intensifies against Tesla Optimus and Figure AI. SoftBank exits to redeploy capital toward its $41 billion OpenAI bet and AI infrastructure.

Janet Harrison

Jun 19, 2026 · 10:38 AM · 5 min read · 40.3K views

Hyundai's move to buy SoftBank's remaining 9.65% stake in Boston Dynamics for $325 million is not just cleanup from an old deal. It gives Hyundai full control of one of the few humanoid robotics companies with real factory work in sight.

Hyundai Motor Group is expected to approve the purchase on June 22, closing out SoftBank's last piece of Boston Dynamics and turning the Waltham, Massachusetts robotics company into a wholly owned Hyundai business. The price is $325 million for the remaining stake, according to the deal terms, and it follows the put option SoftBank retained when Hyundai bought control of Boston Dynamics in 2021.

You should read that as a signal, not a footnote. Hyundai paid about $880 million for an 80% stake in Boston Dynamics in the 2021 transaction, valuing the company at roughly $1.1 billion at the time. SoftBank had bought Boston Dynamics from Alphabet in 2017, after Google had acquired the robotics lab in 2013. It was a strange ownership path for a company whose robots became famous on YouTube long before they became obvious commercial products.

That part is changing. At CES in Las Vegas on January 5, 2026, Hyundai and Boston Dynamics showed the electric Atlas humanoid robot in public, with the Associated Press reporting that the life-sized robot stood up, walked around the stage and was remotely piloted for the demonstration. The useful detail was not the stagecraft. It was the deployment plan. A production version of Atlas is expected to begin work at Hyundai's electric vehicle plant near Savannah, Georgia, by 2028.

Boston Dynamics has spent years making robots that looked too good to be businesses. Spot, its four-legged robot, became the first obvious commercial success. Atlas is the harder test because humanoid robots have to justify themselves in places where traditional automation already exists. Business Insider reported in January that Boston Dynamics CEO Robert Playter said Atlas would need to learn new factory tasks in a day or two and reach 99.9% reliability before it could be truly useful on the floor. That's a high bar. It's also the right one.

Hyundai's advantage is that it doesn't have to imagine the first customer. It owns the factories, the vehicle programs and now the whole robotics company. The Verge reported from CES that Hyundai plans to start Atlas with parts sequencing at its Metaplant in Georgia, then move toward heavier and more complex operations by 2030. If you're building robots for the physical world, that kind of controlled deployment matters more than a perfect demo video.

The supply chain is part of the story too. Hyundai Mobis, the group's components arm, has been tied to actuator production for Atlas, which keeps one of the robot's most important hardware systems closer to Hyundai's own industrial base. Frankly, that is the difference between treating robotics as a side bet and treating it as a manufacturing capability. A humanoid robot is only as useful as the parts, service network and production discipline behind it.

The field around Boston Dynamics is no longer sleepy. Tesla has shifted part of its Fremont factory story toward Optimus after ending Model S and Model X production, a move reported by Axios and The Verge earlier this year. Figure AI has pushed humanoid robots into BMW factory trials. Unitree has made lower-cost humanoids impossible to ignore. None of those companies has Boston Dynamics' long record in locomotion, but they don't need to. They need to make robots cheap enough, useful enough and reliable enough to win specific jobs.

That is why full ownership matters for Hyundai. Boston Dynamics doesn't have to beat every humanoid rival in every market. It has to make Atlas work inside Hyundai plants first, where the tasks are known, the layout is controlled and the payoff can be measured in production uptime rather than conference applause. If it works there, Hyundai gets a robotics platform and a proof point at the same time.

SoftBank has moved on to a bigger AI bet

For Masayoshi Son, the Boston Dynamics exit looks small beside SoftBank's current AI infrastructure campaign. The Wall Street Journal reported in April that SoftBank is forming Roze AI, a new venture meant to use artificial intelligence and robotics to build physical infrastructure, including data centers. Tom's Hardware, citing the Financial Times, reported that Son is aiming for a $100 billion valuation for Roze and a public listing as soon as this year.

That puts the $325 million Boston Dynamics proceeds in perspective. SoftBank is not walking away from robotics as an idea. It is moving toward robots as part of the AI buildout, tied to data centers, energy, land and construction. Boston Dynamics is a product company with hard engineering problems and a slower revenue curve. Son now wants the infrastructure layer.

Hyundai wants the robot on the factory floor. That is a narrower bet, but it is easier to judge. By 2028, Atlas is supposed to be doing real work in Georgia, not just walking across a stage in Las Vegas. If Hyundai can turn that into repeatable manufacturing value, the SoftBank exit will look less like a tidy cleanup and more like the moment Hyundai stopped borrowing a robotics future and decided to own it outright.

Also read: Texas just rewrote the rules for connecting AI data centers to its power grid • Elastic's $85 million bet on DeductiveAI is a signal that AI-native ops tooling is now acquisition currency • The U.S. government just told ASML one of its most restricted machines may be inside China

Janet Harrison has over 16 years experience in the financial services industry giving her a vast understanding of how news affects the financial markets, and an early adopter of blockchain technology and digital currencies. Janet is an active holder and trader spending the majority of her time analyzing blockchain projects, reports and watching new and upcoming projects and other initiatives in the industry. She has a Masters Degree in Economics with previous roles counting Investment Banking.

AI The Fortune 500 just printed its most profitable year ever while shedding 301,000 jobs

5 min 8 views

BUSINESS Charles Schwab's S&P 500 event contracts mark Wall Street's full embrace of prediction market trading

5 min 96 views

AI Norway bans AI from primary classrooms and the rest of Europe may not be far behind

5 min 189 views

Loading next article…

You're all caught up

[ comments ]

Amateur may have cracked Linear A

Kosturdistan — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:04:42 +0000

[ comments ]

← El Bloggo

Tom Di Mino, a self-taught AI engineer and an amateur linguist, claims to have accomplished a feat that has eluded linguistics experts for over a century: deciphering a Bronze-age Minoan writing system known as Linear A.

His claims are currently being reviewed by linguistics experts at Rutgers and Cambridge. While I’m caveating, I will also mention that I know Tom socially.

Di Mino, who is based in the Hudson Valley, began to work on the problem in January this year, and says the major insight came to him on May 22.

If Tom Di Mino has deciphered Linear A, it would be an earthquake in the field of linguistics. When a related Minoan script, Linear B, was deciphered in 1952, it made the front page of the New York Times.

Linear A maps to an extinct Semitic language

Di Mino believes that Linear A belongs to an extinct Semitic language that was a precursor to biblical Hebrew, the way that Latin is a precursor to Italian.

Di Mino is not the first to argue that Linear A was Semitic. Prior attempts to prove it, however, including a 1957 article published by Cyrus Gordon in the journal Antiquity, did not unlock translations the way that Di Mino’s solution appears to, and Gordon’s work did not gain widespread acceptance in the field.

Some background on Linear A and Linear B

Linear A is a Minoan script that appeared sometime around 1800 BC and was used until 1450 BC, when Crete was conquered by Mycenaean Greeks. The Mycenaeans adopted the Minoan symbols as their own, with some minor revisions. The Mycenaean-Greek version of the symbols are known as Linear B. Both scripts were found on various tablets, vases, and other artifacts from the era.

Both scripts use syllables, not letters, as their core elements. The syllables are generally consonant-vowel pairs.

The two systems have 60 core syllables in common, and they both also use logograms – symbols that represent a whole word (“cow”), not just a syllable.

Linear B was deciphered and identified as Greek in 1952 by Michael Ventris, a British architect, cryptographer, and amateur linguist, like Di Mino. Ventris’s breakthrough may not have happened without prior work on Linear B by Alice Kober, a professor at Brooklyn College.

Kober and Ventris used grammatical and statistical analyses to look for patterns in the location of the symbols (e.g. the first syllable was more likely to be a vowel) and how the symbols shifted.

There are many more inscriptions associated with Linear B than Linear A, however, which made it easier to decipher. Also, many Linear A inscriptions are inventories cataloging the trade of different commodities, so they don’t tell us much about the language.

Because Linear A and Linear B have 60 symbols in common, and because Linear B has been deciphered, experts could guess what the overlapping Linear A symbols sounded like but didn’t know what the sounds meant. And there were 13 additional symbols in Linear A that did not appear in Linear B. For those, no sound values have been accepted.

The key that unlocked Linear A

On May 22, Di Mino was analyzing a series of Linear A prayer inscriptions that adhered to a formula. (Don’t worry, you don’t have to understand the formula, but I’m including it for the nerds.)

IOZa2 (Iouktas): A-TA-I-*301-WA-JA · JA-DI-KI-TU · JA-SA-SA-RA-ME · U-NA-KA-NA-SI · I-PI-NA-MA · SI-RU-TE · TA-NA-RA-TE-U-TI-NU · I

(Also see Figure 1 below.)
In the formula all of the words in each line of the inscription were known (based on their overlap with Linear B syllables) except for the first word.
The first word was the same verb root, appearing in different regional forms across five sanctuary sites on the island.
The verb contained 5 known Linear B signs and “*301”, which appeared to be a Linear A-only sign, “na,” which Di Mino used to unlock the root “nawaya,” which means “to dwell.” In Hebrew, Akkadian and other Semitic languages there is a 3 syllable consonant system. N-W-Y is used for verbs and nouns meaning “to dwell or inhabit”.
Once deciphered, Di Mino saw that the prayer was similar to subsequent Hebrew prayers but was addressed to a Goddess.
While Cyrus Gordon had previously proposed links between dedication tablets in Linear A and similar tablets in Akkadian and Phoenician that he had translated, Di Mino claims to be the first person to identify the links between the Linear A inscriptions and Hebrew prayers.
This insight not only unlocked the verb in the prayer inscriptions, but it may also shed a broader light on the use of logograms in Linear A.
Di Mino claims that his insights into logograms in Linear A additionally help to resolve problems with some translations of Linear B, which validates his findings.
Di Mino used Claude Code to build a suite of Python scripts that query, cross-reference, and organize the digitized Linear A corpus (drawn from the GORILA and SigLA databases), enabling systematic hypothesis testing at a scale that would have been impractical to do manually.

Artifacts

Di Mino’s research has led to:

Proposed readings for 40 of the script’s signs, including 13 signs whose phonetic values were previously unknown. He also resolved the sound values for 5 Linear B signs which were unknown to this day.
A lexicon of 408 Linear A terms translated into English
A 9-page draft of a manuscript titled Ya Diktu: Grammar of the Minoan Peak Sanctuary Libation Formula, which may form the foundation for a submission to a peer-reviewed scientific journal

Figure 1. A summary of the symbols in line 1 of the Minoan prayer inscription. Credit: Tom Di Mino, Ya Diktu: Grammar of the Minoan Peak Sanctuary, June 2026.

[ comments ]

There are no instances in ATProto

danabramov — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 15:10:02 +0000

[ comments ]

Every single time a post about atproto hits Hacker News, somebody asks in the comments: “But where are all the Bluesky instances?”. The problem is, there are no instances in atproto! The question is a category error. Instances are a Mastodon-brained concept, and I wanted something I can link to that explains this clearly.

So this is that post.

I know RSS is still being used somewhere (podcasts?!) but its heyday is arguably behind. Which is a shame. For a few years, which some of us might fondly remember as the golden age of the web, it felt like blogging was a cool thing.

Now look at this picture because it’s going to be important:

As a reminder, you publish stuff on your own blog, which you can either self-host or host on a popular blogging platform. But then everyone’s stuff gets aggregated into apps like Google Reader and Feedly, or collective blogs like Monologue (RIP).

Note that hosting and aggregation are two separate things. Your posts don’t “live” in an app like Google Reader. Apps are mere projections of the Blogosphere.

Seriously, make sure this thought sears into your brain; it’s going to be essential.

Here’s what you could call an evolution of this concept.

We put a box around the whole thing so that everyone is enclosed in the same space so we can show ads and stuff. Also, let’s leave only one app (we can let alternative apps live for a while, but not for long). That’s traditional social media.

Oh no, now we have centralization!

Oh no, runaway network effects!

Oh no, bla bla bla.

What do we do?

We need to decentralize this somehow.

I say “Mastodon” here because if I say “ActivityPub” instead, a crowd of people will show up and say that actually what I’m describing is how Mastodon chose to implement ActivityPub. Whereas ActivityPub by itself does not really specify how to actually use it in practice. I’m sure this is all very interesting—but I digress.

How do we decentralize a social network?

Let’s build a version of what we saw earlier, but make it self-hostable. Then every community can have their own “little Facebook” or “little Twitter”. We’ll call them instances. They’re kind of like countries—because you live “inside” one of them:

But wait, this opens a bunch of questions.

How do you choose which instance to join? Maybe you’re a member of a few overlapping communities. Well, I guess you’re just gonna have to pick which community’s admins you trust the most with handling your identity and data.

Okay, now another problem—what if my friend’s on a different instance? How will they see my posts? Since each instance is basically its own little Facebook, they have no shared source of truth. So they have to send messages to each other:

This network topology might remind you of warring fiefdoms in Ancient China.

If Alice-from-instance-#1 follows Bree-from-instance-#2, the two instances make an agreement: Bree’s posts will be forwarded to instance #1 so that Alice can see them. That’s called “federation”. You post on your instance, and then it gets forwarded to other instances whose users wanted to hear from you.

This picture has a few interesting implications:

You “belong” to your instance. You’re not Alice, you are Alice-from-instance-#1. That’s why your Mastodon login is literally [email protected]. “Where you’re from” is an immutable part of your identity. (Somehow, this manages to be even more restrictive than countries and nationalities.)
If your instance’s admins pick a fight with another instance’s admins, they may choose to “stop federating”, and no longer forward any posts between them. That could be a surprising reason why you’re no longer seeing posts from your friends.
If your instance goes down, your identity ceases to exist. People who followed you followed you-from-that-instance, not some abstract platonic “actual you”.

Oh, and the arrows between instances scale as O(n²). This might not matter much now, but it could matter if this approach to social networking becomes popular.

Now forget all of that—full reset.

The mistake was when we drew this box:

Erase the box.

Go back to this:

We have hosting where things actually “live”, and apps aggregate from them. This worked for blogs just fine, so why wouldn’t it work for literally everything else?

Like RSS, but for all kinds of stuff.

That’s atproto.

Now you know! There are no instances in atproto.

Instances are these Mastodon-brained things:

They’re those isolated bundled hosting+app fiefdoms that send stuff to each other.

Compare this picture to atproto.

In atproto, we cut hosting apart from the aggregation at the network level:

There are no instances at all! There’s hosting you can swap, and there are apps that aggregate from everyone’s hosting. It’s very much like RSS and Google Reader.

The decentralization of atproto is richer in structure than “many copies of one app”:

If you want to swap your hosting, you can. I literally did this today. Aside from three or four UX snags, it was all automatic. My atproto stuff is at Eurosky now. If I were more adventurous, I could host all my data myself too for free on Cloudflare.
If you want to try new apps or make new apps, you can do that too! Check out Tangled and Semble, which have nothing to do with Bluesky. I’ve made my own app recently (and it’s open source). I recommend you to try your hand at it too.

You care about decentralization? You have full agency here. Decentralize away.

Now you see why every decentralized social media discussion is derailed by this.

Mastodon users measure decentralization by the number of instances because that’s the only thing you can do in Mastodon. If there’s only one type of “box”, and each box is “an app coupled with hosting”, the only thing you can do is to host more of these boxes and get them to talk to each other. They’re isolated by default.

In atproto, every app is a projection of the whole Atmosphere, just like Feedly and Google Reader are projections of the entire Blogosphere. You mostly “decentralize” by swapping your hosting, and/or by making and trying new apps. Running many full copies of the Bluesky database server is possible, but it’s not any more useful than running many copies of Google Reader. People do set them up (cue Blacksky), but they arise to meet someone’s specific needs (like a different moderation philosophy). There are other approaches too: this Bluesky client has no dedicated database at all, and it just hits a free community-run cache of everyone’s hosting. Shared network infrastructure like Relays has been cheap to run for a year now.

This is why “counting Bluesky instances” is so misleading. What matters is:

Are people migrating to alternative hosting?
Are people trying and making new apps?

Separating hosting and apps fixes broken incentives in closed and in federated social. Coupling hosting and apps was the original sin, and the fix is simple.

Keep our stuff outside the apps; let the apps aggregate over it.

Like RSS and Google Reader.

Discuss on Bluesky · Fork on Tangled

[ comments ]

The room the economy can't see

Wilsoniumite — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 10:16:20 +0000

[ comments ]

(this is part of a series of posts, the link to the next one is at the bottom of the page)

There is a room in Stockholm where a bunch of kids I know hang out. It is a Sverok lokal, which is to say a little clubhouse for a gaming association, and it is exactly the unglamorous kind of good you would hope it is. Kids who do not have anywhere else to be go there. They play games, they argue about games, they sit around being teenagers together in a warm room that is not their bedroom and is not a shop that expects them to keep buying things. Some of them would be pretty lonely without it. It is, by any reasonable measure, a small and real social good.

I want to start with the fact that it works, because the rest of this post is about a problem, and I do not want you to come away thinking the situation is hopeless. It is not. We know how to make rooms like this. We have made one. The kids are ok, at least those that find this kind of resource.

Why does it exist?

It exists because it gets a grant. Public money for associations, what in Sweden we call föreningsbidrag, in this case handed out by MUCF, the agency for youth and civil-society affairs, through a system that was set up to fund youth organisations. Someone, at some point, decided that gaming clubs count, so a trickle of money flows to a federation, and some of that becomes rent on a room. That is the whole reason. Take the grant away and, almost certainly, no room.

And here is the bit that bugs me. The market was never going to build that room. Not because the market is evil, but because there is genuinely no money in it. You cannot sell “a place for lonely teenagers to feel less lonely.” The value is real, but it spills out sideways, onto the kids and their parents and the neighbourhood, and nobody can put it on an invoice. Economists call this a positive externality, which is a fancy way of saying a good thing that happens as a side effect, that the person doing it cannot charge anyone for. The dumb version is: the room makes the world a little better and makes precisely zero kronor, so left to its own devices, the economy does not build it.

So the room only exists because someone reached in by hand and paid for it directly. Can we teach the economy to see the value there naturally, without needing a planning committee? Hold that thought. I think it is most of the answer, but I want to show you the size of the problem first.

The rooms are disappearing, and so is a lot more

That Sverok lokal is an increasingly rare kind of thing. The general version has a name, the third place¹, the spot that is neither home (the first place) nor work (the second place). The café, the pub, the library, the club, the church hall, the union that was also just somewhere to be. We have fewer of them than we used to², and the ones that are left either don’t have many visitors or want you spending money the entire time you are in them.

But it is not only rooms. Look around and you notice a whole category of things quietly going missing, and they have a suspicious amount in common.

Nobody visits grandma. Partly because grandma is three hundred kilometres away, since everyone moved for work, or partly because grandma herself maybe is still working. Kids end up in front of a screen in the afternoon, because both parents have to be at a job and a tablet is a cheap stand-in for a present adult. The neighbour you used to know. The club someone used to run. The friend you used to see every week. People report fewer close friends than they used to, to the point that actual public health officials now say “loneliness epidemic” with a straight face³.

Now, I want to be careful here, because this is the part where it would be very easy to start waving my arms around. Every single one of these has many causes. Suburbs and cars. Television, and then phones. A long list of things that have nothing to do with me at all. I am not going to claim I have found the one secret root of loneliness, and you should be suspicious of anyone who does. We cannot cleanly untangle these. That is just honestly true.

What I will say is narrower, and I think it holds up: these all rhyme. And the thing they rhyme on is that they are all unpaid. Visiting grandma, raising your own kid, running the club, being a decent neighbour, keeping a friendship alive. None of it pays. All of it takes time. And I think one of the reasons we have less of it is the same boring reason I keep banging on about on this blog, which is labor pressure.

The thing the economy keeps doing

For almost all of us, a wage is the only way we get a claim on the things the world produces. That is what a salary really is. Not a reward for effort, but the one socially accepted ticket to food and shelter. Economists call this the distribution function of the wage. I just think of it as the only pipe through which stuff reaches you. And because it is the only pipe, you have to feed it. You sell your hours to a job, because the job pays, even in the cases where the genuinely better use of your time is something that does not pay. The afternoon with your kid. The Tuesday running the club. The trip to see grandma.

So you take the shift. And the economy looks at you taking the shift and concludes, smugly, that the shift must have been the most valuable thing you could possibly have been doing, because look, you chose it. Except you did not really choose it. You chose between the shift and not making rent. The room full of kids, the present parent, the visited grandparent, all of it lost a contest it was never actually allowed to enter.

The economy never sits up and goes “hang on, who is going to run the room?” It has no way to say that. It just quietly fails to fund the room, fills your afternoon with a job of marginal value, and moves on. If it could talk, the most it would ever manage, years later when maybe you’ve gotten away from a subsistence wage, is a sheepish “oh, yeah, that probably was not worth it.” And by then the afternoon is gone. You do not get the afternoon back.

This is the same idea as what I have called make-work, just pointed at your living room instead of at the office. It is the economy spending a genuinely scarce thing, human time, on output worth less than the time, and not even noticing, because all the price signals look fine.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea

I need to put a fence here, because “people have less time for family and community” is a sentence that some people love to finish in an ugly way.

This is not me saying the past was lovely and we should go back. It is not a call for mum to quit her job, or for grandma to be conscripted into unpaid childcare, or for any particular person to go back to any particular kitchen. That is the opposite of the point. The point is that people have quietly been stripped of the option to do the unpaid thing, because the unpaid thing does not pay rent and rent is not optional. The problem is not that someone is shirking their duty. The problem is that we built an economy where the loving, useful, unpaid choice is a luxury most people simply cannot afford.

So the fix is not to push anyone anywhere. The fix is to make the unpaid choice affordable, for whoever wants it, whoever they happen to be. Give people enough room to choose grandma, or the club, or the kid, without the alternative being “or starve.”

Three ways to pay for a room

So how do you actually get rooms full of kids? There are basically three settings.

One: leave it to the market. As established, you get no room. The market cannot see things it cannot sell, and a room full of happy teenagers is invisible to it. This is the default, and the default is bad.

Two: pay for it by hand. This is what Sweden does, and it is genuinely much better than nothing. The state notices a gap and plugs it directly with a grant. It is the improvised second pipe, the patchwork of grants and transfers we have bolted on, one programme at a time, to do the distributing that wages no longer manage on their own. It works. Our lokal is proof it works. But it is a patch. Someone on a committee has to keep choosing to fund it, every single year. And it only ever reaches the goods that somebody specifically thought to pay for. Nobody ever wrote a grant for “being a good neighbour,” so that one just stays broken.

Three: teach the economy to do it on its own. This is the one I actually want. Instead of the state hand-picking which good rooms deserve a cheque, you change the rule underneath, so that the people who would run the rooms can simply afford to. You do that by fixing the pipe. A basic floor of income that everyone gets, funded in a careful way I am not going to relitigate here (see the next post in this series for that), means the person who wants to spend their Tuesdays running the club is not forced to spend them on a marginal shift instead. The whole point is to stop the price system being blind to value that does not happen to arrive in the shape of a wage.

Does this replace the grants?

I am not going to pretend a basic income magically conjures gaming clubs out of thin air. It does not. Somebody still has to start the club, find the room, do all the boring organising. A floor does not do any of that for you. Targeting and universality each do something the other cannot. A grant can deliberately build one specific thing. A floor can quietly make a thousand unspecified things possible, without anyone having to choose them in advance.

So I am not even saying we should scrap the grants. The floor goes on top of what we already have (again, it is not difficult to fund, you just have to do it carefully! Check out the next post). Keep föreningsbidrag. Keep funding the lokal. All I am saying is that right now, a room full of kids gets to exist only because a committee remembered to fund it (sounds like a planned economy eh?), and that is a silly and fragile way to run a civilisation. We managed to build one room almost by accident. The goal is an economy where rooms like it are the normal outcome.

We have a room in Stockholm because, more or less by happenstance, someone funded a social good almost directly. That is genuinely wonderful, and it is not enough.

We need to teach the economy how to do that on purpose.

The next part of this series looks at Sub-subsistence work as well, and introduces the solution. The post is here.

Footnotes:

[ comments ]