Backlash after 500 drones light up New York City sky to celebrate Candy Crush | Hacker News Reader

Backlash after 500 drones light up New York City sky to celebrate Candy Crush

theguardian.com

88 pointsheavyset_go109 comments

Here's the answers for everyone who has questions.

As an FAA Safety Team Member (24891, https://www.faasafety.gov/FAASTApp/directory/view.aspx?appID...), I can shed more light on this. The FAA owns the skies and provides waivers and this was probably a waived operation from the FAA so they were probably coordinating this on the ground.

Cities, and states can pass laws about where it's legal to operate drones, but no city or state may pass a law restricting the "navigable airspace". New York City's ordinance states that it's "illegal to operate drones from NYC and Manhattan" but that's as far as they can go. It's up to the FAA to decide if an operation is a threat to the public and whether it can be done safely. For drone swarms, the controllers are pre-programmed and have RTK modules providing additional accuracy down to the cm or millimeter compared to meters from GPS and once the modules are loaded and launched the flight can be executed autonomously (however, most of these light shows don't have any sensors so collision avoidance is really within the swarm itself and careful planning to avoid manned aircraft and buildings).

If you'd like to see one of these shows in action from the air (self plug), I have a video from the Independence Day show that occurred in Miami on my channel here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWO3Bo1y3B8

There are plenty of other ways to indirectly ban something

The FAA owns the sky. As long as they deemed the risk of property damage, injury and loss of life was properly mitigated to aircraft and people on the ground, and the operation was performed within the constraints of the waiver they have the ultimate power here... however nothing here is being done in the shadows.

Part 107 (commercial drone operations) waivers are available publicly and can be searched online at https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waiver.... The waiver for drone swarms will be waiving the drone swarm requirement under "107.35 – Operation of Multiple Small UAS" so you can search there to find who was given the waiver and their contact information.

I bet you could ban an aspect of a stunt like this not related to flight, like advertising without a permit or something along those lines. Has anything like this been tested in court?

The FAA won't ban something unless there's a safety component. Light is covered under the FDA (surprisingly) and there's an interest Defcon talk about jamming Lidar guns (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQtLms02PFM). If you made the argument to the FDA that the lights from the drones are a safety issue... it could be done.

Presumably the city could enact an ordinance banning and fining an organization for an areal stunt regardless of if the FAA approves. Of course a city can’t make laws to alter how a federal agency regulates something, but that doesn’t ban there aren’t other avenues.

Flying aircraft in formation is gonna be hard to argue as a hazard... honestly the "light polution" argument would probably be the best one.

Show me where in your charter it says the FAA owns the sky - it ain’t fucking there so stop writing.

49 U.S. Code § 40103

(1)The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103#:~:text=49%...

> every citizen of the United States has “a public right of freedom of transit in air commerce through the navigable air space of the United States.” 49 U.S.C. § 403 (1940) (current version at 49 U.S.C. § 1304 (1976)).

I will also add this one as well... as a citizen you have the right to transit in air commerce through the airspace so long as your actions do not cause risk to property or people.

Part 91 means I can fly whenever the fuck I want and the FAA has no authority.

That’s the complete opposite of ownership. So I’m right. Say it.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-91

> Note: The following procedures do not relieve the pilot from see-and-avoid responsibility or compliance with FAR 91.119.

Plenty of things that you must follow.

Yea but you can’t do anything if I follow those things.

Hence you don’t own the sky and hence you’re a shithead for acting like a child telling us your Daddy owns the sky so we have to believe you.

I’m still posed off nobody went to jail after y’all got that woman killed on the SWA flight and traumatized the rest.

You need to get buy j. From the tech side and here you are acting like a somebody. Get back to work.

Sovereignty is not ownership, surely. The United States has sovereignty over its own territory as well, that doesn't mean it has ownership of every parcel of land in the United States.

Stop paying your taxes and tell us the government doesn't own your land.

Change it through voting is possible therefore the sovereign state is the people not the government.

You are using the fallacy of arguing to the absurd.

I’m more correct than an asshole saying “my employer owns the sky listen to me”

> I’m more correct than an asshole saying “my employer owns the sky listen to me”

Ohhhhh.... I get the employer thing... the FAA Safety Team is a volunteer organization tasked with education. We don't work for the FAA... wow, I finally get it.

Even worse you’re part of a volunteer education organization and you spread misinformation. Wow you really are a shithead!

Sovereignty granted by the people that can be revoked.

The FAA are Traffic Cops or Game Wardens.

Don’t let this pompous asshole tell you his employer owns the skies. The FAA doesn’t own the skies and Cops with his same attitude don’t own the streets.

This person should be censured for spreading disinformation that benefits him/her when it is a lie and the audience is sophisticated enough to not need to eve use colloquial English.

Yes I’m still mad at the phrase because it’s WRONG.

> This person should be censured for spreading disinformation that benefits him/her when it is a lie and the audience is sophisticated enough to not need to eve use colloquial English.

The truth that the FAA has sovereignty over the navigatiable airspace... and unless someone wants to litigate it to give the state/city more power it will stay that way.

Semantics, but RTK is GPS too.

That is correct, maybe I mistyped something on the way to writing that wall of text.

I’d prefer if we banned outdoor public advertising altogether. Some town in Brazil did it, was it São Paulo?

Billboards are banned in Vermont, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska, all of which have absolutely beautiful landscapes.

Santa Cruz, CA, has only one billboard iirc, coming over hwy 17 from the Bay Area. I never appreciated how this muted the pace of advertising exposure until I spent time in other parts of the US where such things are less regulated.

"Welcome to Murder Capital, USA"?

what? santa cruz? murder capital?

Multiple serial killers killed a bunch of people there at the same time in the 70's, which gained them the murder capital label. And this was spray-painted on a billboard in Lost Boys which was filmed in Santa Cruz, though of course the cause there was vampires.

I think that I shall never see

A billboard lovely as a tree

Indeed, unless the billboards fall

I'll never see a tree at all.

    -- Ogden Nash, "Song of the Open Road"

I do think Times Square and broadway has a certain charm. I also loved the density of the neon signs in Mong Kok.

There’s is also something charming about the ridiculousness of using Burj Khalifa as a bill board.

On the whole, I wouldn’t choose allowing advertisement in public just to save those places but I would love to have my cake and eat it too.

No wonder billboards and neon signs are like an infestation in concrete jungles. Thats what it takes to make a place like that look more interesting. What a time to be alive.

I'd like to think there's an alternate timeline where instead of ads lighting up Times Square, it's art that lights it up.

Just a wee town of 12M eh?

c.f.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis_(figure_of_speech)

   `Other examples

   "The Pond", for the Atlantic Ocean ("across the pond") '

Mayhaps, but we can never know for sure now.

People call London "town". Just a phrase.

They also call some small places "city" too.

What is the definition? Is aircraft livery outdoor public advertising? How about highway signage showing which businesses are available on an exit?

How far from a store before a store sign crosses the threshold to become an ad?

I'm sure we can come to legal agreement as a society. We've legislated on far more esoteric and complex subjects.

> How about highway signage showing which businesses are available on an exit

You don't need that signage. Standard "food, lodging, gas station at next exit" signs exist.

In Sweden sides of the road (10 meters or so) belong to the road administration and advertising and billboards in that space are prohibited because they interfere with road signage.

It's amazing.

Man, I fucking wish.

I always wonder sometimes, did ancient civilizations have advertising? I think I read it was banned even.

> did ancient civilizations have advertising?

Yes:

https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/ancient-roman-gladiator-...

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/spectaclesintheromanworldsour...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/lwecg4/were_...

Banned in Bangalore, India.

"celebrate" is an interesting way to say "advertise"

No doubt that display made at least a few people want to "celebrate" the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not sure they need to advertise at this point. Surely anyone with a phone has seen the game or has seen someone else playing the game.

Sometimes celebrations really are just celebrations of the "life" of a thing. 10 years of existence and the massive success of this game are a pretty big deal.

You could say the same about coca cola and yet they spend huge amounts of money on advertising. It's not always about people not knowing about you. More often than not it's about them not forgetting about you.

Advertising never ends. You don't "finish" advertising.

Microsoft kinda stopped advertising, at least on TV, perhaps they had their reasons.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqx5Spa9MNo

Given the positive results of commercial drones in Ukraine over the last 8 months, I've been wondering about when this kind of tech is going to converge with the war.

If you can equip 20+ drones with grenades, controlled by a single operator, and mass a formation on an entrenched Russian position, what can be the results?

It's trivial today to equip commercial drones with individual human tracking. Or identify groups of a few hiding in a bunker or a hole. Sky really is the limit.

Imagine a military level version of a drone swarm targeting a major encampment or forward position. Combine a combo of arms from grenades to small missiles with the ability to identify unique targets of interest.

An average HIMARS missile costs about $100k. You could get dozens of highly capable commercial drones for that price. Imagine a swarm of hundreds of military drones carrying "small arms" but able to individually target enemy positions on a dynamic real-time basis.

It's honestly kind of scary and awe inspiring about how effective such relatively low cost mass deployment systems could be.

The US has been developing drone swarms since the 2010s at least, I assume other first-class militaries are roughly at the same capability or perhaps better.

So, it has existed for awhile but I don't think the swarms have been employed.

Do we really want a world where even the skies are full of ads?

Unless there is regulation against it, it will happen.

It has crept into virtually every other place - your TV, the sides of football pitches, the (virtual) turf on american football fields, etc. etc.

In this case at least, fleets of drones couldn't really be used over populated areas due to the risk of a failing drone falling and hurting someone. So I don't expect to see too much of this in most areas. I'm sure we will see it over sports arenas when the area under has been temporarily emptied of players.

Soon the future as depicted in Futrama will be here: Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century? Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree!

I'm reminded of "Red Dwarf"

How many of us saw this and thought "anti-drone lasers can't come soon enough"?

It was only a matter of time before this tech is used for advertising. Soon spots in the sky will be bid on like AdWords.

if this drone display of a very short (relatively) duration is annoying to you, you must have missed all of the chatter about ad displays like this from satellite constellations in LEO. um, nope. I'd be all for anti-sat technology at that point

A primary difference would be that this is happening now, rather than being a hypothetical. One can dislike both, but not mentioning a hypothetical surely doesn't negate the dislike of the actual.

It's the commenting on something before it happens that can help prevent it from happening. Commenting about it after it happens is the worthless effort.

> Commenting about it after it happens is the worthless effort.

Well that's a dense take. So candy crush has one drone ad and we are supposed to give up on preventing drone ads in the future?

Also, it is of short duration now, but that will surely change as some battery life improves over time.

I can totally see this morphing into some Blade Runner/ Cyberpunk dystopia where these "displays" fill the city skies with lady-silhouettes and roulette machines.

Maybe that's ok if it's just a (logical?) upgrade to neon signs, but I'm undecided.

1. It is rapidly becoming clear that drones are a historically effective technology for winning wars, killing people & destroying stuff. "The display was flown over land, from neighboring New Jersey, so as not to violate New York City airspace restrictions and laws prohibiting drones within city limits." is enough to warrant taking them out with force.

2. There is also a risk that they fall out of the sky and kill people.

This sort of display is a very bad idea.

Sorry, the fact that it complied with local laws is warrant enough to take them out? Is that what you meant to write?

On the safety issue, they got specific permission to fly the display, and did it over land with safety controls in place.

I’m not saying this was a good idea, but if so they shouldn’t have been given a permit. The safety issue is a red herring, it seems to have been done perfectly safely, for humans anyway. Not sure about birds, but again that should have been considered by the authority that granted permission.

A few comments here seem to be assuming this was done sort of unlicensed guerilla marketing caper. It wasn’t, it was done perfectly legally as far as the article reports.

Driving like an asshole can also be legal, depending on what you’re doing and in which state. Doesn’t mean it is social acceptable. So now we need to change permitting laws because of asshole companies with advertising campaigns that ignore what is socially acceptable? And before you claim this is socially acceptable behavior, tell me another company who’s done this without backlash?

I’m not aware of another company that’s done it at all. We’re in uncharted territory. I just think it’s odd, right in the middle of fireworks season here in the UK, for outrage at someone putting coloured lights in the sky.

You didn’t read the end of the article which said:

> The company obtained a special permit to stage the display.

There's three international airports within the area, one of which is in NJ right across from NYC.

Newark is hardly right across from NYC - it's a fairly long drive (or train ride) through Jersey City and a few suburbs to get there. There is plenty of available low-altitude airspace between EWR and Manhattan.

Shenzhen is way ahead in drone shows.[1][2] It helps when they're made locally.

Fireworks are so last-cen.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0qmUTllPbE

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apokvH4F9Ws

Why not both? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s61_IsjqLzc

The video proudly claims to hold the Guinness world record for the most drones simultaneously launching fireworks.

These look good on YouTube but in reality they move quite slow and are pretty underwhelming. Most online videos of drone shows are sped up quite a lot.

And missing the most exciting part of fireworks which is the sound/shockwaves

Which is also the part which completely terrifies all the animals for miles around. I dread the "fireworks season" which here in the UK stretches from Diwali until after 5 Nov with a brief coda around xmas and New Year because of the effect it has on my dog. It's absolute torture for him even though we do what we can to mitigate the impact.

Sure, that’s a reasonable reason to dislike them. But I think people get a bit dishonest with the drone shows. They try to promote them as better than fireworks when they just aren’t. We can admit that we are compromising

Totally agree. Fireworks can be wonderful. One of my fondest memories is when as a child of about 6 my father (a chemical engineer) taught my brother and me how to make gunpowder and we made fireworks. We added a bunch of other chemicals to make them burn different colours (copper sulphate for blue etc) and then set them off when it got dark. My mother was so freaked out by how dangerous it was that she made him promise never to do it again. Feels particularly special now as he's old and has dementia so his days of doing crazy shit are coming back but not in quite the same way.

I care a lot about nature, and I don't like any creature to be unnecessarily harmed...

But the visuals here are pretty awesome.

I think it's a missed opportunity to make it 3D instead of just 2D in the air. Show me the equivalent in 3D, then I'll be impressed.

Curious of how long it takes all 500 to get into position. I know ~30 minutes flight is about normal for Mavic type drones, so just thinking how much flight time the drones in this setup get. Maybe 5-6 minutes to take off and verify all are in position, 10 minute show, 5-6 minutes to RTB and land? I'm building in some additional "fuel" for any kind of delays. Clearly, they are computer controlled (assuming an onboard computer), but just thinking the 500 number is large enough to give one pause on are we in place and ready to go checks.

I imagine that given the low resolution, 3D would have been much harder to understand (identify) for most viewers. Unless you happened to be facing the "front" of the 3D representation, it would probably just look like a bunch of sparse dots.

As for the flight duration, they probably have larger/more batteries than consumer drones since they should be purpose made (carry self, more batteries, light+electronics (small/light), communication electronics (small/light)).

I don't think too many birds were out flying in the dark, although bats may be out roaming around at that time.

Bird migration takes place largely at night.

Does anyone have information on how they coordinated 500 drones to form an image in the sky?

I can actually speak to this.

So there is software that does this for you using RTK base stations which provide better than GPS accuracy. The software is out there (skybrush is a good one open source one), you load your points into the flight controller of your drones and the show is actually fully automated after launch, the flight controllers just have waypoints and times where they should move so that the swarm doesn't collide.

You can actually do it without RTK but you have to come to terms with the fact that your drones could be within 6 meters off of the target location while RTK can give you cm accuracy in the sky. The FAA actually approves swarm operations and I was able to capture some of it in Miami during the Independency Day celebration (self-plug for my own channel incoming) which you can see here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWO3Bo1y3B8

Thank you for the information, fascinating. I've been curious about this for a while, how drone swarms are coordinated by software to perform intricate shows. There must be some interesting questions to solve, like how to avoid collision, or if they need error correction in case of wind, etc.

Skybrush: Open-source drone light show and drone swarm management framework - https://github.com/skybrush-io

I learned RTK means "Real-time kinematic positioning". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_kinematic_positionin...

Apparently it's possible to set up one's own RTK station. https://github.com/Stefal/rtkbase https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/setting-up-a-rover-base...

> There must be some interesting questions to solve, like how to avoid collision, or if they need error correction in case of wind, etc.

Yes, interestingly collisions aren't that difficult to avoid and wind can be countered but you can also simulate your show and tweak your "safety distance". You can actually see it in action in some drone shows when the lights go out... you'll the movements begin on the outer edge and then spread inwards minimizing the risk of collision.

RTK stations have been coming down in price little by little and are even commercially available from drone manufacturers like DJI for not a ridiculous amount of money.

https://skybrush.io/

I have the same question. What is the software architecture to make that possible? Does any open-source solution exist?

It’s been possible to precisely coordinate the synchronised motion of drone swarms for quite a while now.

ML most likely? Have a camera, and then adjust the drones to fit desired image going into that camera. Feed in windspeed and other data. Drones can fly themselves already so this is just more adjustments.

This discussion reminds me of the old joke from the Cold War era. A shortened version guess like this:

- Mr President, the USSR has landed on the Moon and they're painting it RED!

- Ah okay, when they're done send our guys to put the Coca-Cola sign over it.

Can someone make an adblocker for the sky?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

Unfortunately it’s illegal to shoot down drones in many US jurisdictions. And there is a federal law that hasn’t been tested against drones yet:

“Under Title 18 United States Code 32, it is a federal crime to damage, destroy, disable, or wreck an aircraft. The penalty for violating 18 U.S.C. 32 is up to 20 years in prison.”

Also discharging a firearm could be considered excessive and illegal under certain circumstances.

A reasonably-sized yagi antenna and an SDR should do quite nicely.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement

“ The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes.”

Sky adblockers have existed for years – we call them ballcaps. (Incidentally, many such adblockers also bear advertisements of their own, which face away from the wearer.)

Wi-Fi jammer?

Built into AR contacts heh

Black mirror ep

The next form of this could be in low orbit; far from the reach of local laws.

As we can see here, it’s not enough to ban drones within the city.

The US already bans launches for advertising like this from space. That's not to say you couldn't launch from another country though.

Hopefully hackers who give a shit about free thought will sabotage the earth based infrastructure.

Perhaps anyone in the viewing area who had a car accident may have a claim against the company for visual distraction?

I wish there was a way to ban pay to win games like this shit.

Or at the very least put such a high tax on the marketing that it becomes impossible to make a business out of it.

Like them or not, the drones are cool.

Good job, Microsoft.

https://xkcd.com/1523/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com