Marvel Studios took a step toward regaining its reputation as Hollywood’s most reliable hitmaker over the weekend.

“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” was expected to collect about $118 million at theaters in the United States and Canada from Thursday through Sunday, according to Comscore, which compiles ticketing information. Based on advance ticket sales and surveys that track moviegoer interest, Hollywood had expected “First Steps” to arrive to about $115 million in domestic ticket sales.

The movie, which cost at least $300 million to make and market worldwide, was on pace to generate an additional $100 million overseas, for a global opening total of roughly $220 million. Reviews were generally strong.

It was Marvel’s first original breakout hit in six years. (The film is not a sequel. The characters were adapted from Fantastic Four comics, first published in 1961.) Marvel had previously tried to strike gold with movies like “Eternals,” which fizzled in 2021, and “Thunderbolts*,” which was released in May and has taken in $382 million, the lowest total in Marvel’s 17-year, 37-film history when adjusted for inflation.

Marvel’s sequels have also been hit and miss, contributing to fears of “superhero fatigue” in Hollywood. In some ways, Marvel’s runaway success in the 2010s made it arrogant; the studio’s storytelling became tortuously complicated, weaving together plots from numerous TV shows and movies and prompting some casual moviegoers to decide that Marvel cared only about comic nerds.

Disney, which owns Marvel, pushed hard on a “First Steps” marketing message in the weeks leading up to the film’s release: You do not need a Ph.D. in Marvelology to understand this one.

“It is a no-homework-required movie,” Kevin Feige, Marvel’s president and chief creative officer, said at a publicity event. “It literally is not connected to anything we’ve made before.”

The Fantastic Four — Invisible Woman, Human Torch, Mister Fantastic and the Thing — have proved difficult to adapt for the movies, making the response to “First Steps” all the more notable. A low-budget version in 1994 was so slapdash that its release was canceled. A 2005 effort was loathed by both critics and fans, but it performed well enough in theaters to get a slightly less reviled sequel, “Rise of the Silver Surfer” (2007). The property was rebooted in 2015, but that version also fizzled at the box office and is derisively remembered as the “Fantastic Four” movie in which the Thing wore no pants.

“First Steps,” directed by Matt Shakman (“WandaVision”), stars Vanessa Kirby, Joseph Quinn, Pedro Pascal and Ebon Moss-Bachrach. Julia Garner co-stars as the enslaved Silver Surfer. Critics praised the movie for its strong ensemble, retro-futuristic setting and satisfying villain, among other aspects.

“The movie is a step-up in concept, storytelling and appeal,” said David A. Gross, a film consultant who publishes a newsletter on box office numbers. “We haven’t had this kind of performance from the genre for a long time.”

“First Steps” arrived two weeks after “Superman,” which was a hit for DC Studios and Warner Bros. Mr. Gross noted that studios are releasing only four superhero movies in 2025 (they have all come already), down from eight in 2023. “This is the new normal,” he said, explaining the pullback as Hollywood realizing that supply had exceeded demand.

As of now, the next superhero movie is 11 months away — “Supergirl,” in June of next year.

There's a very long history of extremely effective labor saving tools in software.

Writing in C rather than Assembly, especially for more than 1 platform.

Standard libraries. Unix itself. More recently, developing games in Unity or Unreal instead of rolling your own engine.

And what happened when any of these tools come on the scene is that there is a mad gold rush to develop products that weren't feasible before. Not layoffs, not "we don't need to hire junior developers any more".

Rank and file vibe coders seem to perceive Claude Code (for some reason, mostly just Claude Code) as something akin to the advantage of using C rather than Assembly. They are legit excited to code new things they couldn't code before.

Boiling the rivers to give them an occasional morale boost with "You are absolutely right!" is completely fucked up and I dread the day I'll have to deal with AI-contaminated codebases, but apart from that, they have something positive going for them, at least in this brief moment. They seem to be sincerely enthusiastic. I almost don't want to shit on their parade.

The AI enthusiast bigwigs on the other hand, are firing people, closing projects, talking about not hiring juniors any more, and got the media to report on it as AI layoffs. They just gleefully go on about how being 30% more productive means they can fire a bunch of people.

The standard answer is that they hate having employees. But they always hated having employees. And there were always labor saving technologies.

So I have a thesis here, or a synthesis perhaps.

The bigwigs who tout AI (while acknowledging that it needs humans for now) don't see AI as ultimately useful, in the way in which C compiler was useful. Even if its useful in some context, they still don't. They don't believe it can be useful. They see it as more powerfully useless. Each new version is meant to be a bit more like AM or (clearly AM-inspired, but more familiar) GLaDOS, that will get rid of all the employees once and for all.

Mastodon link: mastodon.social/@Edent/1149363…

Terence Eden’s Blog

2025-07-29 11:34:22

I'm never going back to Matrix

shkspr.mobi/blog/2025/07/im-ne…

I should love Matrix. It is a decentralised, privacy preserving, multi-platform chat tool. Goodbye Slack and your ridiculous free limits. Adiós Discord and your weird gamification. Suck it IRC with your obscure syntax and faint stench of BO. WhatsApp and Telegram can stick their heads in a bucket of lukewarm sick and sing sea shanties! Let's join the future!

The problem is - Matrix is shit. Not just on a protocol level, but on an organisational level as well.

I joined Matrix at FOSDEM - the largest gathering of open source nerds in Europe. We were all encouraged to use it - every talk had its own channel, all the official comms came from there, I was even invited to a top-secret private channel for speaker. This was going to be epic! Viva la rèvölūçïón, right? Wrong.

It was dead. Even among the most seasoned geeks on the planet, most people preferred to use other services like Signal, Telegram, and Slack. Why? Because those other tools actually work.

Matrix has two official Android apps - one of which is old and unsupported, the other is new and doesn't work with many of the basic chat features.

I want to be absolutely clear about this - the company behind Matrix have put out an app which doesn't work with their own product! Lest you think I'm exaggerating, here's a typical view of the official FOSDEM speaker room, using the official Matrix app:

It was embarrassing. People would pipe up in channels and say "this doesn't work" only to be told they were using the wrong app and should go back to the one marked unsupported. So they left, never to return. Even in the large talks, where people were encouraged to use the official Matrix chat, most of the conversation happened on other platforms. It was just too hard to use Matrix.

A few thousands geeks, all used to recompiling their own kernels and participating in the Fediverse, and most thought that Matrix was too much of a faff.

After FOSDEM, I kept the Matrix app on my phone. Occasionally receiving a ping from some long-forgotten channel.

And then, one day, I got hit with the most vile spam. A dozen notifications suddenly appeared on my phone with abuse, torture, and transphobic slurs in them.

You can view the screenshot - but, fair warning, it is grim.

This shouldn't be possible. It doesn't take an expensive team of moderators to add some keyword monitoring. It doesn't take a massive AI model to work out that a stranger shouldn't be able to bombard users with multiple notifications. You don't have to sacrifice your dream of a decentralised future - you just need to care about your users.

This stuff is basic.

I moaned about it on Mastdon and was surprised to receive a private reply from the official Matrix account.

Please do not encourage the spammer by giving them a platform and propagating their spam; you may want to consider deleting your post.

This is classic victim blaming. It is my fault for giving the spammer attention. I am the one who needs to take responsibility and delete the evidence. I shouldn't warn people that Matrix is actively dangerous to use.

Bullshit.

Here's what I expected them to say:

"We're sorry you had such a bad experience on Matrix. Rest assured we're working hard to block these spammers - here's a link to show what we're doing. You can protect your account further by doing x, y and z. Once again, sorry and we hope we can win back your trust."

I'm not saying scrappy open source projects have to hire anodyne corporate communications specialists; they just need to have a little empathy.

But, no, just constant whining about how it isn't their fault and how I am the one who needs to change my behaviour.

This is pretty typical behaviour from the team. Find any post complaining about some aspect of Matrix and you'll see their instant woe-is-me replies.

So I deleted the app. I would have liked to have nuked my account but apparently that's not possible.

I'm not the only one who feels like this. Here's an epic post by Marius, which concludes:

Between the slow performance, the increasing amount of spam, the miserable web client, and the unfinished state of Element X, the Matrix.org network is not something I am willing to continue to recommend, especially to non-technical users. Normal people are simply tolerating it to communicate with idealistic nerds like myself who insist(ed) on using it.

Matrix just isn't focussed on users. I'm not talking about user-experience tweaks like which shade of cornflower blue to use - I mean basic user needs like apps that work and a way to combat spam.

There's a long list of ways the protocol contributes to a poor user experience. It almost seems designed without regard for how it will actually be used.

While the protocol may be conceptually interesting and their intentions noble, I'm not prepared to suffer abuse in the name of technical purity.

Open Source and Open Standards nerds like me ought to know by now that the protocol is the least compelling thing about a service. Who cares if your home is built using only Stallman-blessed tools, when the walls are full of rats?

#foss #Matrix #OpenSource #rant

[Request] Allow account deletion

I've looked over the matrix spec and unfortunately /account/deactivate only requires for any future login to become impossible. Synapse fulfils the spec, but does not actually delete the account, w...

^{MoritzMaxeiner (GitHub)}

Samsung has decided to proceed with the Bootloader blocking also in Europe, a move that has caused a lot of discussion. Behind this choice is a European regulation that will come into force in August 2025 and which risks changing smartphone usage in Europe forever. This is why other manufacturers may soon follow suit.

From 1 August 2025, new provisions will come into force RED Directive (Radio Equipment Directive), which redefines the compliance requirements for all radio devices sold in Europe. This is a significant change, not so much for the amount of regulations introduced, but for the effect they will have on the entire Android ecosystem. The issue revolves around three articles that impose specific protections: against network interference, personal data compromise, and digital fraud. These are, in themselves, sacrosanct rules.

But the crux comes with the interpretation prevailingEach device must ensure full compliance not only with the hardware, but also with the software that controls the radio modules. This is where the bootloader comes in. Unlocking it essentially allows you to replace the original operating system with an alternative one, such as LineageOS or GrapheneOS.

But these systems, if they modify the radio drivers even minimally, invalidate the CE certification. An uncertified device can no longer be legally marketed or used, at least according to the most stringent reading of the law.

This scenario has therefore led Samsung to protect its devices. Not on a whim, but to avoid any software modifications falling under your legal liability. If a user installs a ROM that interferes with radio frequencies or compromises communications security, the manufacturer (and in some cases the importer) may be held directly liable.

RED does not explicitly talk about unlocking the Bootloader or custom ROM, but it opens one regulatory space in which the margins for maneuver are they narrow. And in doing so, it provides a solid argument for those who have been trying for years to close the loop between hardware, software, and services. After all, customizing the operating system also means breaking away from proprietary services and, therefore, from the model that ties the user to the brand.

Samsung is just the first to move, but it's hard to imagine it will be the only one. Starting in August 2025, it's very likely that other manufacturers will follow suit, at least for the European market.