Sweden was on the verge of eliminating banknotes as a payment system. Now it asks its citizens to save cash just in case

Few countries in the world have turned their backs on cash with so much conviction as Sweden did in its day. For years it was the great global laboratory of digital money and a place where, paying in cash, It was almost a strange gesture. In the Nordic country, it is common to find businesses where “card only” signs are read without anyone protesting. Its financial system seemed to have resolved the future of payments once and for all. Now, that same country has just taken a turn that no one expected: recommending that its citizens save a certain amount of cash in case all their digital payments system collapses. From inventing banknotes to almost eliminating them. Sweden has a unique history with paper money. In 1661 it was the first country in Europe in introducing billsand it was also where the Riksbank, the central bank, was born oldest in the world. That pioneering vocation led her, centuries later, to lead the race towards a completely cashless economy. The numbers reflected it clearly: if in 2010 39% of Swedes said they had paid their last purchase in cash, in 2020 that percentage had fallen up to 9%. According to the Riksbank itself, currently only one in ten Purchases in Swedish stores are made with physical money. Anders Ohlsson, CEO of Deutsche Bank Corporate Bank, summed it up like this: “I don’t think right now people in Sweden know what the different currencies are like.” A central bank that asks you to keep banknotes at home. The Riksbank published some recommendations which were surprising coming from one of the most digitalized financial systems on the planet. The Swedish central bank asked all households in the country to keep at least 1,000 Swedish crowns in cash for each adult (just over 90 euros at the exchange rate), as a cash reserve for possible emergencies. “This amount should be considered as a reference and is intended to cover one week of essential purchases. Households may need more or less cash on hand, depending on the number of people in the household or their specific needs. Whenever possible, households are recommended to keep cash in various denominations,” the Swedish banking entity says in its statement. Too digital to be invulnerable. The underlying reason for making this peculiar call is not nostalgic but strategic. An economy that depends almost entirely on digital payments is also an economy exposed to power outages, cyberattacks or geopolitical tensions. The Visa and Mastercard networks, on which a large part of the Swedish payment system is based, are of American origin, which adds an extra layer of vulnerability in an increasingly uncertain international context. The Riksbank itself puts it bluntly in its statement: “Access to different payment methods improves people’s ability to make payments in the event of temporary disruptions, crises and, in the worst case, war.” It is not an unfounded threat. In recent months, several European countries have reviewed the resilience of your critical infrastructures before him security deterioration and the increase in uncertainty on the continent. Diversify so as not to depend on a single system. Beyond cash, the Riksbank’s warning to citizens is committed to a more diversified payment strategy. He recommends having access to at least two cards from different networks (a Visa and a Mastercard, for example) so that, if the systems of one of them fail, payments can be made with the other. It also advises having access to mobile payment services like swishthe popular Swedish application that operates on a different infrastructure than traditional bank cards. For whom use Apple Pay either Google Paythe Swedish central bank reminds that it is advisable to always have the physical card on hand and know the PIN, since the physical chip allows payments to be made even without an internet connection. All of this advice will be developed in more detail in the Riksbank’s 2026 Payments Report, due on March 12. Sweden, which for years led the way to paperless money, is now a reminder that no system is foolproof. In Xataka | If we want to know what the end of cash will be like, we only have to look at a country that is experiencing it: China Image | Unsplash (Tobias Flyckt, Emil Kalibradov)

Ukraine has updated the nation’s bloodiest game. Eliminating Russians is now the closest thing to “ordering an Uber”

In the month of May, a unprecedented merger between military technology and video game logic. Ukraine had launched a reward system which awarded its soldiers points for killing Russian troops or destroying their vehicles, as long as these acts were verified by drone video recordings. That system, a kind from “Amazon military”has been updated with drones as protagonists. A real shooter. The now called “Army of Drones Bonus System” that has emerged in Ukraine presents itself on the surface as a incentive platform which includes the aesthetics and mechanics of video games (scores, ‘leaderboards’, online stores and rewards) but at its core is an operational transformation: an institutionalized scheme that quantifies casualties, observation successes and logistical achievements to translate them into real resources (drones, autonomous vehicles, electronic warfare systems) through the internal store call Brave1. Born a little over a year ago and accelerated in recent months until passing from 95 to 400 units participants, the system already exhibits strong effects on combat (according to official figures, 18,000 Russian casualties attributable to actions linked to the system in a single month) and has expanded its radius of action beyond the air attack to reconnaissance, artillery and logistics missions, incorporating into military practice notions of competition, internal market and performance metrics that were previously foreign to the art of war. Mechanics and logic. The program architecture works with clear and convertible rules– Each credited action (from eliminating an enemy combatant to capturing a prisoner to destroying a drone operator) awards points that can be exchanged for materiel in Brave1which creates a feedback loop where operational success is transformed into material capacity to continue fighting. The update of the score table (for example, doubling points for killing infantry or setting 120 points for capturing a prisoner) reveals the system’s ability to reorient incentives based on strategic priorities and political needs, and at the same time evidences a commodification of efficiency: life and death pass through a technical-economic threshold that converts lethal decisions into a cost-benefit function. This internal economy alters the microdecision of the combatant and resituates logistics and acquisition within the tactical space itself, with the Brave1 store acting as a war market that prioritizes allocation by competitive merit. Screenshot of the rewards system Automation and AI. The system is not limited to accounting, integrate tools technologies that change the very nature of target selection and engagement. Drones partially controlled by algorithms that suggest targets and correct the terminal phase of the trajectory represent a step towards lethal automation, while practices such as “Uber targeting” They demonstrate how consumerist and geospatial interfaces have been converted for war uses. Thus, marking a point on a map and triggering a remote impact is the operational translation of the everyday gesture. to request a transport. The video proof requirement To obtain points, it also generates a vast operational database that feeds institutional learning: what objectives were achieved, with what platform, from what distance and how the enemy defense behaved. That visual and metric file facilitates dissemination of techniques between units and accelerates innovation from below, with real effects on tactics and doctrine. Psychological effects. The Guardian said that, beyond the material and the technical, the system produces a kind of emotional breakdown: Senior officials recognize that the process of assigning a numerical value to human life has ended up turning violence into technical, “practical” and “emotionless” work. At the same time, gamification produces camaraderie effects and competition that, according to the commanders, are healthy and encourages discipline and learning between peers. However, this same dynamic can generate operational biases (prioritizing high-scoring objectives over tactically relevant objectives, or the temptation of operations with low effectiveness but high cumulative performance) that distort strategic coherence. Implications and extension. The Ukrainian experience shows that incentive principles can be transferred to other areas: artillery that receives points for valid hits, reconnaissance that earns rewards for identifying targets, and logistics that scores the use of autonomous vehicles instead of human convoys. This extension transforms the war ecosystem into a set of internal markets where tactical-technological innovation is quickly monetized and scaled, forcing planners a double urgency: exploit the immediate advantages of the system without losing strategic coherence and design ethical and operational countermeasures that prevent internal competition from fragmenting the priorities of the military effort. And ethics? It’s the big question. Ethically, the commodification of violence raises profound questions about responsibility, proportionality and war crimes: Who responds when a score induces an action that violates humanitarian law? The appropriation of AI for target selection also introduces the question of attribution of responsibility between human operators, algorithms and the chain of command. Strategically, converting equipment gain into the primary source of replenishment aims to create dependency loops that, in logistical wear and tear scenarios, discourage long-term wear and tear operations that are necessary in the short term for larger objectives. Score the violence. The “Army of Drones Bonus System” represents a mutation relevant to the way motivation, acquisition and innovation are organized in contemporary warfare: it incorporates market logicpoint economies and automation technologies that increase lethality and efficiency, while eroding moral frameworks and opening new vectors of risk. Its contribution is undeniable in terms of capacity and adaptation, but its expansion urgently claim a framework that does not yet exist at national or international level. In the background, a long doubt in this species Amazon military: that what is celebrated today as tactical innovation can tomorrow become a structural source of insecurity and lack of moral control on the battlefield. Image | Ministry of Defense Ukraine, Ministry of Defense of Ukraine In Xataka | An imperceptible hum is wreaking havoc in Ukraine. When it arrives there is no turning back: the Russians are already everywhere In Xataka | The Ukrainian army has been asked what it urgently needs. The answer was clear: no missiles or drones, just cars

The USB-A ports are not going to disappear so please, manufacturers, stop eliminating them from their equipment

My Logitech keyboard has a wireless receptor in the form of USB-A adapter. The same goes for the Anker webcam that I use, which is great and that connects to my equipment with its cable with a USB-A connector. The wired mouse I use to play, surprise, also uses that port. In fact, the Mac Mini M4 that I use daily to work has a great paste: It has no USB-A connectors. On its front there are two great USB-C ports, but I do not use them as such: I have long bought two USB-A (female) adapters to USB-C (male) to be able to use my peripherals easily in that equipment. That has long been the constant appearance of the front of my Mac. It is no longer as stylized as they conceived in Apple, but I don’t care, because what is is practical. I have some USB-C peripherals, yes, but they are the least, and despite the advantages of the USB-C connector, the reality is that today many peripherals-trays, keyboards, webcams, pendrives, etc.— They are still betting on the well-known, old and good USB-A connector. The dichotomy of the industry: do we kill the USB-A, yes or no? It doesn’t matter if it is more speaking, more rough and zero reversible. In his favor he has played the fact that he is recognizable and that he managed to give a simple answer to the problem of differentiation. In USB-C there is no easy way to know if a cable offers better transfers and supports better load capabilities than another. In USB-A connectors, look if The inner color of the connector. Color Standard Speed Special characteristics White USB 1.x 1.5 – 12 Mbps None Black USB 2.0 Hi-Speed 480 Mbps None Blue USB 3.0 Superspeed Up to 5 Gbps None Red USB 3.1 Gen 2 & USB 3.2 10-20 Gbps Always on Yellow USB 2.0 & USB 3.0 480 – 5 Gbps Always on, Power Liabilities Delivery Orange USB 3.0 Up to 5 GPBS Always on, Power Liabilities Delivery The connector USB-C has been imposed In the mobile devices segment. The same European Union chosen it as the standard of iure that They had to use all manufacturersincluding an Apple that surely did not like the idea. The funny thing is that this same company has been an ultranza defender of the USB-C connector in its Mac and MacBooks. Apple went through a terrible stage in which the number of connectors minimized to the maximum –The infamous MacBook He only had a USB-C port— and that made many complain about The #Donglelife condemnation although in the end it was not so much. The funny thing is that Apple ended up reconciling with connectivity, and both the Mac Studio and the MacBook Pro are an example of it. The first to They tell With USB-A ports (surprise!), While the latter include SD card reader and HDMI port but, pity, no USB-A ports. The laptops loved (alone) to the USB-C connectors That unique obsession with not including USB-A ports in laptops is common in the segment and is not limited to Apple’s MacBook. You have to search well among the available models of HP, Lenovo or Dell to find equipment that has USB-A ports. Even “big” teams like the Dell XPS 16 They pass olympically from that port. The manufacturer goes further and, anticipating the complaints, gives us the option of buying a USB-C adapter to USB-A (additional 25 euros) to be able to connect peripherals of this type to their laptop. Arch. Fortunately those ports Yes they are available For example, in its gaming laptop alienware range, something logical if we consider that it is much more normal to connect gaming peripherals that usually use the USB-A connector. There is no doubt that the USB-C connector has important advantages. Murphy’s law is usually complied with the USB-A connectors: We often try to connect on the side that is not. That does not happen with the USB-C connectors, wonderfully reversible, but it is also possible to combine data transfer with the video signal. But with everything and with that, the USB-C connector and those cables have their own problems, among which it stands out the chaos of variants that exist. That is a separate problem that does not especially affect that other reality we are talking about: the USB-A connector is still used by all types of manufacturers for all types of peripherals. And that is why it is striking to see how most portable manufacturers (and some desktop equipment, such as the Mac Mini) continue to be obtained with a forced update that has not been produced. Some brands have been trying to forget the port and USB-A connectors, but again and again the peripheral market prevents it. It is true that adapters and the Dongles They solve the problem acceptably. But it would not be to see from time to time no gaming teams that recovered those ports. That, I’m afraid, it’s going to be difficult. Image | Bram van Oost In Xataka | Clariating with USB-C ports is an impossible mission. A new labeling system wants to end the mess

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.