The restrictions are a mix of reasonable nuisance management and paranoia about who is flying drones, what they can do, and chain of custody.

Beijing proper is a city with a population density of over 21,000 / km^2 -- so you can imagine the chaos if any tech enthusiast resident could fly a drone without a permit. Except for a couple of free zones in the outer boroughs, New York City restricts drone launcing and landings within the city to flights with a permit and flight plan, because otherwise the sky would be black with drones. Many cities -- both red and blue -- have zone restrictions for drone flights, and those currently hosting World Cup matches have tightened them for the duration of the tournament.

I fully agree with your observation.
Being used to FF with uBO on the laptop and DuckDuckGo on the Android I am always totally surprised by the junk other browsers allow to cover up content.
Even /. has to live and adds a bunch of stuff I normally don't see...

FF might not be perfect but it sure beats other browsers anytime.

It's good there are people that like you look at the finer details.
But I use FF since when it came out and hardly ever find it wrong, especially after they last year fixed the main memory leak.

Hey China!

When you want to fund the revolution against the Epstein plutocracy HMU!

Hahaha, anyone surprised?

Algorithm?
That's where they fail right away.

The information is inconvenient to Trump.
It is well known he does not like reading reports so the management should have send him easy to digest video's, preferably presented by an ex-Fox News person.

Great :)
Mine is called "Area 51".

Great point. It's also really unclear how many Mythos found that are not/would not be found by open weight models.

This is pure marketing FUD, which is one of Anthropic's most advanced forms of "intelligence".

Correct, as anyone can see by looking at who they rounded up.

"Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist "

But in the next state over, the next company will also treat you as badly as they can get away with.

The natural model for a programmer's union is the Screen Actor's Guild. That's another field with a wide range of talent. SAG members can get the best pay their agents can negotiate, lots for stars. But everyone is protected from exploitation.

The winner would be the manufacturer of the dope.
So that's where your award goes.

DST works by tricking people to wake up and get to their daily activities an hour earlier than they normally would. And it is sold as "giving" people an hour extra in the evening. They could do that without changing their clocks by just waking up at 5 instead of 6 and working 7-4 instead of 8-5, but most people don't want to wake up earlier. So we use DST to trick them into doing it.

Doing DST as a whole society also helps for people who don't have flexible hours for their daytime activities.

But i realized a while ago that the twice a year time change is the PRIMARY reason why DST even works. Because without the constant change, people would just adapt to the new timezone. Daily activities (like school and work) would shift to starting an hour later. Lunch would start being eaten from 1-2 instead of 12-1, as the new time would be when the sun is at its highest. Dinner would be 6-7 instead of 5-6, because that is closer to when the sun is setting. It would take several years, but eventually, society would shift its schedule to closer match the sun. And the way that DST "tricks" people into getting up an hour earlier would stop.

btw, your preference (and mine) for year standard time is the way most of the world works. Gray countries in that map do not do DST. It's really only US, Canada, Europe and a few other places. And I'll never understand DST in Alaska, which is already entirely in the wrong time zone.

While I agree that many in the industry want the cheapest and the fastest to build regardless of quality, my question is about the demand side.

Who wants these apps? What is is that they do that someone is willing to pay for? How does that address the cost of the other inputs that make apps worth enough money or other rewards that someone wants to maintain them?

We are 18 years out from the launch of iPhone App store, and even though humans are far slower than AI in building apps, after nearly two decades I don't think there are massive parts of human activity that are un-apped. In pharmaceutical development, the dearth of "undrugged diseases" has led pharma companies to focus on rare and orphan diseases - bringing VERY high cost drugs to market to serve small numbers of people.

Where are the "orphan applications" that these apps are there to serve?

Vibecoding a delivery app stack will not make DoorDash obsolete - somebody still has to recruit drivers and food sellers and offer something to each of those parties that makes them want to drop DoorDash. DoorDash may be able to automate away some labor (though I suspect it will be less than they think).

In the enterprise, the theoretical "un-automated work" seems to be in two main buckets:
1- making presentations, dashboards, documents automatically, and
2 - building software automatically

Both of these clearly have some value, but I think the AI boffins and investors are wildly overlooking all of the human stuff that goes along with those tasks.

Also, it's obvious that AI makes that kind of stuff a commodity, meaning that its value goes down as its volume increases. So yeah, AI can make a lot of slop, but it's not obvious how that makes there be more valuable stuff.

Yeah, agreed. I actually am really struggling to understand how they think there is demand for this kind of thing. Is there market research where someone says "sure, I don't care who's talking, just as long as the content is a topic that I am plausibly interested in and the _conversation_ is not too jarring".
It's true that people will watch AI slop on YouTube; my guess is that is the demand signal they are responding to.

I have once watched an AI generated YouTube video (really it was weird graphics over an audio that sounded like Richard Feynman reading) and I found the explainer vaguely interesting enough to continue watching in the background for 20 min while I worked. I guess that channel got a few ad impressions off my eyeballs for that.

So I can see notionally how this kind of slop might win over some other slop in a transactional zero-sum way, but I really can't see how any of the typical marketing stuff - audience building, brand development, downstream sales conversions, fits in with AI-generated, undifferentiated commodity content. Isn't the whole idea of an influencer that the audience wants a person to connect them to content?

Maybe it will work, but my guess is it will just result in a lot more content that one has to wade through. I'm sure someone will have an AI solution to that. Turn that Hamster wheel up to ludicrous speed!