I won't criticise actual parents - these are their children, their decision, their responsibility and their either regrets or appreciation later. That is a trade-off and they will see in about 20 years whether it was worthwhile. Even not having children I know parenting is difficult (I just remember how hard it was for my parents). However I definitely appreciate that I was allowed to wander through my town (in central Europe) when I was a child/teenager. Moreover - I regret being so afraid of everything and not exploring more. Maybe it was a time to have that fear so that I could overcome it in later stages of life. Maybe.
To be a devil's advocate - maybe lower frequency of crimes against children is a result of that red tape? Or maybe not. I don't know.
Couldn't it be used to identify/track the ICE vehicles? Observe where drones suddenly become enclosed in a no-fly zone (do I understand correctly that operators get notification that they should land immediately)?
Are you suggesting that the system is efficient enough, and the users of it are competent enough, that a live moving no-fly zone would be placed somewhere that a drone in the immediate vicinity would be informed and be disabled?
I have my doubts. I would guess one "popping up" would at least be delayed such that it's pretty pointless by the time the drones are notified. Annoying indeed, useful (even to the ne'er-do-wells trying to enforce this crazy stuff) not so much.
DJI has (or, at least, had, a few years ago) a no-fly system that was updated via the Internet. Maybe it's not live, but then what would be the point of these no-fly zones? Just so ICE agents can shoot your drone down with impunity? If they didn't need license to execute people in the streets, I don't see why they'd need license to shoot down a drone.
Very interesting.
Observations from 3 and 4 seem to contradict each other. In 3 author claims that previously we had to "soften" our views due to social pressure of people in our vicinity (room, street, city...). This moderated both us and people we interacted with. Now we often stumble upon virtual place with people of similar world views, where the society does not force us to self-moderate.
In 4 however the author claims that previously we could say certain things that we can't say now, due to social pressure.
And I certainly can confirm it. At the same time extreme world views are more pronounced (echo chambers in social media) and people lose their jobs because they said something "wrong". What causes these seemingly opposite changes to occur at once? Did we just lose ability to discuss things in civilized manner due to lack of...well, discussions in the isolated internet groups? Are we so far from each other that we replaced normal human talks with diplomatic relations, as we represent different echo chambers, despite living and working together? Maybe that previous self-moderation gave some room for discussion because we could assume our interlocutor at least had common problems and interests with us?
Thanks for sharing this book. I'm only at chapter (or "piece" as the author calls it) and already have something to think about.
Clawd was born in November 2025—a playful pun on “Claude” with a claw. It felt perfect until Anthropic’s legal team politely asked us to reconsider. Fair enough.
Moltbot came next, chosen in a chaotic 5am Discord brainstorm with the community. Molting represents growth - lobsters shed their shells to become something bigger. It was meaningful, but it never quite rolled off the tongue.
OpenClaw is where we land. And this time, we did our homework: trademark searches came back clear, domains have been purchased, migration code has been written. The name captures what this project has become:
Open: Open source, open to everyone, community-driven
Claw: Our lobster heritage, a nod to where we came from
reply