Connect with us

Entertainment

Commentary: Am I the only one who hates delivery robots?

Published

on

Commentary: Am I the only one who hates delivery robots?

When I was a child, I watched “The Jetsons” and “Lost in Space” and imagined my adult self living in a world of high-tech ease: flying cars, self-cleaning rooms, high-speed trains, personal jetpacks and wise-cracking robotic companions capable of solving any problem in a trice.

Instead I got Google (now with an irritating and frequently wrong AI feature), increased gridlock, Roombas, far too many passcodes/two-factor authenticator systems and a bunch of motorized ice chests cluttering up the sidewalks.

The last of which were recently banned, mercifully if temporarily, in Glendale. Reading about the city’s upcoming moratorium on delivery robots, I literally cheered. I hate them so much.

I know, I know, they’re adorable, with their wide “eyes” and squat toddler-like determination as they trundle along, pausing in careful recalculation whenever they encounter a curb, street sign, a sidewalk cafe table. Hating them makes me feel a bit like those folks who ban children from weddings or make snarky comments about dogs showing up just about everywhere (two things I would never do).

A Serve Robotics delivery robot heads to work Feb. 13. They navigate autonomously using LiDAR and only require human intervention if they get stuck, damaged or are heavily vandalized.

Advertisement

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

But though I am happy to accommodate dog walkers, stroller-pushers and other slow-moving/space-requiring pedestrians, I am less happy to do so for a tricked-out little metal box as it picks its way over potholes and sidewalk cracks on a “heroic” mission to deliver takeout to someone who, presumably, lives less than a mile away from its source.

And it isn’t just cranky-pants impatience. I recently became part of a face-off between two opposite-running Coco bots on the small strip of sidewalk in front of Cafe Figaro. The minutes-long standstill forced several people into the street; many more, including my husband and his cane, engaged in a potentially perilous stutter-step around the two knee-high, randomly moving yet noncommunicative vehicles.

One of which was, for reasons of its own, sporting an American flag — maybe it wants to be a Mars rover when it grows up.

Advertisement

Delivery bots, including those made by Coco, a company begun in 2020 by two UCLA graduates, have been around for a while. Early rollouts, however, were small and often plagued by trouble. Stranded or struggling robots became the new Bird scooters — nifty ideas that proved more problematic in practice.

In the last two years, however, improved models have become an increasing presence; Coco, which has expanded across the country, recently announced a bigger, bolder next-gen model.

 The Coco 1, left, alongside the new Coco 2 (Next-Gen)

The Coco 1, left, alongside the new Coco 2 (Next-Gen) at the Coco Robotics headquarters in February in Venice. Coco Robotics launched its next-generation, fully autonomous delivery robot, Coco 2.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Many people love Coco and other delivery robots, which partially replace traffic-clogging, exhaust-spewing delivery drivers with a more environmentally friendly alternative.

Advertisement

Others do not, viewing the bots as sidewalk lice that create hazards and take jobs from humans. Several cities, including Chicago, Toronto and San Francisco, have already instituted bans; Glendale is, as Long Beach recently did, taking a less draconian approach, putting the robots on pause while city officials figure out a regulatory framework.

Good luck with that. The e-bike craze, which is putting many people, including kids, in the hospital at an alarming rate, has thus far defied similar regulatory frameworks. As with delivery robots, the possible benefits of e-bikes — environmentally friendly, traffic-decreasing, super fun to ride — created a demand that ignores the dangers created by popularity.

Unlike e-bikes, or the electric scooters that preceded them, delivery robots aren’t yet causing widespread physical harm. Even my own feelings for those motorized metal coolers are fueled by existential disappointment as much as personal irritation.

In many ways, the high-tech future I envisioned as a child has come to pass — we have computers in our pockets, driverless cars, thumbprint and face ID, and voice-activated remote controls for everything. We may not be able to teleport, either physically or via hologram, but we can Zoom or video chat with pretty much anyone anywhere. ChatGPT is not exactly J.A.R.V.I.S., but it’s something. High-speed trains, and pretty much any mass transportation improvement, continue to elude the United States, but one can experience them elsewhere.

Serve Robotics

Matt Wood, Serve Robotics supervisor, drives a robot to a holding area earlier this year in the company’s parking lot where it and 26 others were to be transported by delivery truck to a farther service location.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The problem is, of course, that reality is much more complicated than futuristic visions sold by “The Jetsons,” “Minority Report” or the cultural marketers of Silicon Valley. Like e-bikes, every advancement creates a host of new problems — hackers, identity theft, system failures, increased energy demands. Labor-saving devices are rarely that — instead labor is shifted, from one department to another, from the body to the brain, or standards are raised — when laundry is done by a machine, its operator must ensure that all clothing is bright, soft, sweet smelling and stain-free just as those who have been given a company smartphone must be available 24/7. After all, how hard is it to answer a text?

Delivery robots are both disappointing in their reality and alarming in their symbolic implication. With all manner of industries constricting and AI threatening entry-level positions, many people have become delivery drivers, full-time or as an economically necessary side gig. Are robots coming for them as well? And are we all going to step around them and post photos on Instagram as they do?

It’s a lot to put on a relatively new and small industry that remains, thus far, a cute and novel way to receive a salad or a few groceries. Those who fear imminent robotic world domination can actually take heart — like the AI actor Tilly Norwood, these little geezers have limited abilities. They don’t go very far, or move very fast; they are easily damaged and disabled (especially in Philadelphia). If they are the vanguard of a sentient nonhuman enemy, we don’t have much to fear yet.

Still, as these robots grow in number and size, those big innocent “eyes” and the cutesy design take on an unnerving air. As Albert Brooks said in “Broadcast News”: “What do you think the devil is going to look like if he’s around … he will be attractive, he’ll be nice and helpful.”

Advertisement

And deliver your lunch.

Movie Reviews

Blue Heron Review: Some Things Last a Long Time • The Austin Chronicle

Published

on

Blue Heron Review: Some Things Last a Long Time • The Austin Chronicle

Within the family at the center of Blue Heron, the black sheep is a blond. Fair-skinned teenager Jeremy (Edik Beddoes) is an outlier among his siblings, two jostling preteen boys and watchful, 8-year-old Sasha (Eylul Guven), who are all darkly featured and take after their Hungarian parents (Iringó Réti and Ádám Tompa). Jeremy’s hair color doesn’t really matter, of course, but the contrast makes a useful shorthand for Jeremy’s otherness. 

If “other” sounds inexact, that’s the point. To the frustration of his devoted but exhausted parents, there’s been no straightforward diagnosis for what ails Jeremy – for the mood swings, the “acting out.” A move at the beginning of the film to a new home is hopeful but short-lived: The mystery of Jeremy, to himself and to others, persists.   

Much of Blue Heron is set over the course of one summer on Vancouver Island in the late Nineties, mirroring filmmaker Sophy Romvari’s own backstory, though the film shouldn’t be confused for straight autobiography. (Her 2020 short film, “Still Processing,” explored her family’s struggles with mental health through first-person documentary.) Still, the remarkable texture of these family scenes and how they favor Sasha’s childlike perspective – her small hands as they handle a potato peeler for the first time, the easy smiles as her mother dabs sunscreen on her face – feels intensely personal. There’s a hushed, dreamy quality to these scenes, mimicking memory itself, that plays into Blue Heron’s remarkable ability to hold two seemingly contradictory things to be true. Sasha can resent her brother and love him. Jeremy can be terrifying and in pain. A film can be whisper-quiet and still trip the wires in your brain that scream “danger.”

With very little dialogue and no cookie-cutter story beats, this fraught family life is vividly, tenderly rendered by Romvari and her naturalistic cast. That makes it all the more disorienting when, at arguably the moment of highest drama, Romvari shifts to a different vantage point. Boldly, she is asking the audience to look anew at what we’ve seen: to acknowledge what we saw was not the whole picture (how could it be, from an 8-year-old’s eye line?). The effect for me – and I suspect for you too, if you’re the kind of person who likes to take a movie apart and understand how it ticks – is exhilarating. 

But not entirely effective – and in this reservation I gather I’m the outlier; Blue Heron has been rapturously received at festivals and by critics. This second half (of which I’m loath to spoil the specifics) becomes at once more experimental and more documentary-like, and revolves around a muted performance stranded in the in-between of drama and docudrama. Nothing ruinous, but a hangnail nonetheless on a film that otherwise had me in its thrall.

Advertisement

Blue Heron

2026, NR, 90 min. Directed by Sophy Romvari. Starring Eylul Guven, Edik Beddoes, Amy Zimmer, Iringó Réti, Ádám Tompa, Liam Serg, Preston Drabble.


























Rating: 3.5 out of 5.

Find movie times.

Advertisement

A note to readers: Bold and uncensored, The Austin Chronicle has been Austin’s independent news source for over 40 years, expressing the community’s political and environmental concerns and supporting its active cultural scene. Now more than ever, we need your support to continue supplying Austin with independent, free press. If real news is important to you, please consider making a donation of $5, $10 or whatever you can afford, to help keep our journalism on stands.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Clavicular charged with misdemeanor after viral video shows alligator being shot repeatedly

Published

on

Clavicular charged with misdemeanor after viral video shows alligator being shot repeatedly

The internet’s most controversial looksmaxxer is in hot water again.

Clavicular, born Braden Eric Peters, has been charged in Florida’s Miami-Dade County in connection with a video that circulated on social media showing an alligator, which appeared to be dead already, being shot repeatedly in the Everglades. Two others are also facing charges in connection with the incident: Andrew Morales, 22, known online by the moniker “Cuban Tarzan,” and Yabdiel Anibal Cotto Torres, 26, who goes by “Baby Alien.”

Peters is facing a misdemeanor charge of unlawfully discharging a firearm in a public place, according to court records obtained by The Times. The Miami-Dade state attorney’s office filed the charges April 29.

Steven Kramer and Jeffrey Neiman, attorneys for Peters, told The Times in a text message, “Our client has been summoned to appear for a misdemeanor charge that stems from following the instructions of a licensed airboat guide. He relied on that guidance. No animals or people were harmed. We are confident that once the full picture is understood, people will see this for what it is.”

The shooting took place at the Everglades and Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area boat ramp dock on or about March 26, court records said. The video shows the men aboard an airboat firing at the alligator more than a dozen times.

Advertisement

“Yeah, it’s definitely dead,” Peters is heard saying after firing.

Shortly after the video went live on social media, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission announced it had launched an investigation into the incident.

“Florida’s wildlife and waterways deserve respect, not content farming,” Lt. Gov. Jay Collins said March 26 on X. “Under my watch, anyone who abuses wildlife in Florida will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

Morales’ attorney Richard Cooper emailed The Times a statement Wednesday. “We urge the public not to rush to judgment. Importantly, there is no allegation that any animal was injured, and the available evidence does not support the sensationalized narrative that has circulated online,” the statement read. “My client relied on information and guidance provided by those in authority and had no criminal intent.”

An arraignment has been scheduled for May 20.

Advertisement

The face of “looksmaxxing,” a subculture hyperfocused on taking extreme measures to perfect one’s physical appearance, Peters has admitted in interviews that he uses appetite-supressing and performance-enhancing drugs, as well as recreational party drugs, and has said he chisels his face by smashing his bones with a hammer.

The same week Peters’ alligator video caught the authorities’ attention, the manosphere influencer was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor battery. He was taken into custody on a warrant issued by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office and released soon after on bond. Police allege that in February the 20-year-old internet celebrity instigated a fight between his girlfriend, Violet Lentz, 24, and a 19-year-old influencer at a Kissimmee, Fla., short-term rental. That incident was also live streamed to his hundreds of thousands of followers.

Then in April, Peters was live streaming from a Miami nightclub when he appeared to overdose on camera. In the video, Peters is seen taking a swig of an unknown substance and then subsequently starting to mumble, sway and close his eyes as the camera panned away.

TMZ obtained the audio from a 911 call alerting emergency services to the possible overdose of a 20-year-old man. Additional videos, taken by bystanders, showed Peters being carried out of the nightclub.

A source close to Peters told The Times that he was hospitalized for the overdose and checked himself out the following morning. Within hours of his release from the hospital, he was back on streaming platform Kick and telling his followers he would be out at a nightclub that night to promote its grand opening.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – Mortal Kombat II (2026)

Published

on

Movie Review – Mortal Kombat II (2026)

Mortal Kombat II, 2026.

Directed by Simon McQuoid.
Starring Karl Urban, Adeline Rudolph, Jessica McNamee, Josh Lawson, Ludi Lin, Mehcad Brooks, Tati Gabrielle, Lewis Tan, Damon Herriman, Chin Han, Tadanobu Asano, Joe Taslim, Hiroyuki Sanada, Max Huang, Martyn Ford, Ana Thu Nguyen, Desmond Chiam, CJ. Bloomfield, Vanesa Everett, Sharon Brooks, Steven Cragg, Sophia Xu, and Ed Boon.

SYNOPSIS:

The fan favorite champions — now joined by Johnny Cage himself — are pitted against one another in the ultimate battle to defeat the dark rule of Shao Kahn that threatens the very existence of the Earthrealm and its defenders.

Advertisement

Drunk in a bar while running away from his destiny of future Earthrealm Champion in returning director Simon McQuoid’s Mortal Kombat II, a fan of the washed-up, never-kut-it-as-a-star leading man of korny action movies Johnny Cage (Karl Urban, a bizarre kasting choice, forcing him to push some of the kharacter’s goofiness into the actor’s more hard-edged style – even if one has never played the video games it is easy that something is off tonally about this performance for much of the running time) is ecstatic to meet him, only to be met with a self-deprecating teardown of his work while asserting that what audiences want today is grounded and gritty, citing John Wick as an example.

That’s true to an extent, but it doesn’t mean Mortal Kombat is fit for that path. And yet, that is half of the tone screenwriter Jeremy Slater has cooked up here for the sequel (thankfully including a tournament this time, even if these are some of the strangest rules for such a thing, without any bracketing or a number of kontestants that would kontinuously evenly split in half – think 16 to 8 to 4 and so on until a winner is determined), an overly self-serious wannabe Marvel-style attempt at an epic (take a shot whenever the heroes walk toward the screen in slow motion like a team has just been assembled) that kan’t help itself from striving for emotionality through a swelling, dramatic take on the music (komposed by Benjamin Wallfisch) and the occasional piece of exposition explaining away or showing a traumatic backstory that ie subsequently diskarded for a lengthy amount of time, never materializing into anything worth investing in.

The bulk of this misguidedness komes from the introduction of Kitana (Adeline Rudolph, a standout, making the most of looking stylish and badass while wielding dual fan-blades when it’s her time to enter the spotlight) as a young girl (Sophia Xu) with her realm tormented by Outworld’s merciless skull-masked ruler Shao Kahn (Martyn Ford), assuming kontrol over the land through kombat and taking her as a daughter. It is an early setup for a payoff that does eventually kome and deliver (easily one of the better fights that don’t involve Hiroyuki Sanada’s Scorpion and Joe Taslim’s Sub-Zero that the recent movies have produced), but mostly pushes her to the side throughout the rest of the film, minimizing the impact of whatever kharacterization is intended. I can tell you that this specific final fight rules, but it would be deceitful to say that her revenge is emotionally satisfying.

That’s the glaring issue with Mortal Kombat II in a nutshell: it’s awkward and cheesy when trying to take itself seriously and embody a tone that the material doesn’t warrant, but mostly works when it’s in a more subversive, irreverently funny vibe (as in, not to spoil it, everything happening here with CJ. Bloomfield’s Baraka). Josh Lawson’s Kano is also back and excels here as a kharacter functioning as the exact kounterpoint to the aforementioned Johnny Cage statement regarding realism; he’s here to rip a new one into the demeanor and appearances of the other fighters and kharacters, good and bad, with Necromancer Quan Chi (Damon Herriman) getting the brunt of the insults and more than enough to make one wonder if the filmmakers and possibly even video game franchise creator Ed Boon (who has a cameo) hate him.

Earthrealm leader and God of Thunder, Lord Raiden (Tadanobu Asano), is once again here keeping morale high to save the human race. Rounding out the other kontestants are some of the usual beloved faces, ranging from Ludi Lin’s fireball-throwing Dragon Warrior Liu Kang, Jessica McNamee’s no-nonsense soldier Sonya Blade alongside her half-cyborg teammate Jax (Mehcad Brooks), soul-sucker Shang Tsung (Chin Han), screeching Queen Sindel (Ana Thu Nguyen), an evil possessed take on hat-blade boomerang-tossing Kung Lao (Max Huang), a loyal konfidante partner-in-training and non-biological sister of Kitana in Jade (Tati Gabrielle), with other familiar faces popping up here and there. And while it would be a stretch to say that anyone is going to become a star from these movies, it’s fair to say that they play and look the parts well enough, whether it be some fan service posing or one-liners or, most importantly, busting out trademark moves and kombos.

Advertisement

As for the fights themselves, they take place across several locations (some of them feature klassic arenas such as the infamous acid pool room) that have mostly been green-screened to the Netherworld and back, kreating a frustrating contrast to the otherwise impressive fight khoreography and wirework. Of course, some of the editing is still choppy, while many of the attacks themselves often fail to land with the necessary brutal impact a film like this should instill. There is something video-gamey about them in motion that doesn’t always translate well or feel anywhere near as visceral as some of the fatalities from the games or X-ray special attacks. The fact that most of the gore here is CGI blood doesn’t help.

Still, whenever Mortal Kombat II falls into a jokey rhythm that knows all of this is ridiculous (including all the deus ex machina artifacts kharacters are looking for here), pokes fun at itself (Lord Raiden is finally mocked as looking like something out of Big Trouble in Little China), and remembers that there should be almost no downtime between kombat, it’s enjoyable enough, sometimes feeling like a representation of what these adaptations should be, although disappointingly coming nowhere close to the guilty pleasure absurdities of Paul W.S. Anderson’s first krack at this. Mortal Kombat II simply can’t shake its boneheaded desperation to be taken seriously as epic, never fully kommitting to dumb fun; the kourse-korrection is almost there.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★

Robert Kojder

Advertisement

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending