Stop the track­ing cir­cus.

Tired of mis­lead­ing cookie ban­ners? The EU Commission has fi­nally pro­posed a so­lu­tion: set your pri­vacy pref­er­ences in the browser once, and never see an­other ban­ner. Unfortunately, the track­ing in­dus­try is push­ing back — and so far, they’ve been suc­cess­ful. We need YOUR help to #KillTheCookieBanner!

Cookie ban­ners are made to trick you into waiv­ing your rights

You may think that EU pri­vacy law re­quires cookie ban­ners. But the law is clear: on­line track­ing is pro­hib­ited by de­fault.

Therefore, the track­ing in­dus­try needs you to waive your rights. That’s why they in­vented cookie ban­ners, which of­ten are de­lib­er­ately mis­lead­ing as well as an­noy­ing.

This re­sults in up to 90% of peo­ple say­ing “YES” — even though only around 3% ac­tu­ally want to be tracked on­line. This sys­tem is bro­ken by de­sign.

The so­lu­tion: au­to­mat­i­cally com­mu­ni­cate your pri­vacy pref­er­ence

In Autumn 2025, as part of a big­ger le­gal re­form*, the EU Commission fi­nally pro­posed a so­lu­tion to the cookie ban­ner prob­lem: au­to­mated sig­nals that would com­mu­ni­cate your pri­vacy pref­er­ences be­tween your de­vice and web­sites or apps. You could then choose whether you want to ac­cept, refuse, or limit track­ing.

This idea is nei­ther new nor com­plex. Your browser al­ready au­to­mat­i­cally sig­nals other pref­er­ences to web­sites, for ex­am­ple your pre­ferred lan­guage. In some US states, such sig­nals for pri­vacy pref­er­ences are al­ready legally sup­ported.

The track­ing lobby fights to keep the cookie ban­ner

This would be a sim­ple so­lu­tion. But the track­ing in­dus­try seems afraid that if you can ex­press your pref­er­ences ef­fi­ciently, it could re­sult in lower con­sent rates for track­ing.

Following lob­by­ing ef­forts spear­headed by Google and the track­ing in­dus­try, sev­eral Member States are now block­ing the EU Commission’s pro­posal to get rid of the cookie ban­ner.

But not only that: in­dus­try groups are also lob­by­ing the European Parliament to re­ject the pro­posal.

We need YOUR help!

That’s where you come in: the fight to kill the cookie ban­ner is far from over. The Member States and the European Parliament have not yet de­cided on their po­si­tion on the is­sue yet.

You can take ac­tion by con­tact­ing your rep­re­sen­ta­tive in the European Parliament or in your Member State and ex­press your frus­tra­tion.

*This pro­posal for pri­vacy sig­nals is part of an EU law re­form called the Digital Omnibus. Most other parts of this re­form are prob­lem­atic and would weaken peo­ple’s rights. We want to make clear that we do not sup­port these other as­pects of the pro­posed re­form.

*This pro­posal for pri­vacy sig­nals is part of an EU law re­form called the Digital Omnibus. Most other parts of this re­form are prob­lem­atic and would weaken peo­ple’s rights. We want to make clear that we do not sup­port these other as­pects of the pro­posed re­form.

Serving tech en­thu­si­asts for over 25 years. TechSpot means tech analy­sis and ad­vice you can trust.

A hot potato: A fed­eral case in Atlanta is rais­ing ques­tions about a pri­vacy-fo­cused mo­bile op­er­at­ing sys­tem, with pros­e­cu­tors ar­gu­ing that its fea­tures were used to erase ev­i­dence. The US Department of Justice is at­tempt­ing to pros­e­cute Atlanta res­i­dent Sam Tunick un­der a fed­eral statute that makes it a crime to de­stroy prop­erty in an ef­fort to pre­vent it from be­ing seized.

The case cen­ters on Tunick’s use of GrapheneOS, an open-source op­er­at­ing sys­tem that works on Google Pixel phones and lets users en­ter a pass­code to wipe a de­vice clean.

Experts said the le­gal ap­proach is un­usual and may be the first time the law has been aimed at an op­er­at­ing sys­tem. “It’s con­cern­ing — and sends the mes­sage that [GrapheneOS] is crim­i­nal by de­fault,” said Christophe Boutry, a cy­ber­se­cu­rity and sur­veil­lance ex­pert. Boutry and Bill Buddington, se­nior staff tech­nol­o­gist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, both said they had not seen a sim­i­lar case.

The in­ci­dent be­gan at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on January 24 of last year. Tunick had just re­turned from a trip to the Dominican Republic when he was stopped for ques­tion­ing. According to court tes­ti­mony, fed­eral agents had al­ready cir­cu­lated his name and photo in­ter­nally, say­ing he was un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion for “suspected ter­ror­ism ac­tiv­i­ties” be­cause of his al­leged as­so­ci­a­tion with the move­ment against Cop City.

Tunick was taken to a sec­ondary screen­ing room, where mul­ti­ple agents ques­tioned him. A mo­tion filed by his de­fense ar­gues the in­ter­ro­ga­tion fo­cused on child sex­ual abuse ma­te­r­ial as a pre­text for in­ves­ti­gat­ing his con­nec­tions to the protest move­ment. The mo­tion also states that Tunick asked four times to speak with a lawyer and was de­nied each time. According to the same fil­ing, agents did not pre­sent a war­rant or read him his rights.

Government at­tor­neys and agents pushed back dur­ing Monday’s hear­ing. They de­scribed the en­counter as a rou­tine air­port in­spec­tion. Larry Findley, a Customs and Border Protection of­fi­cer, said agents were “looking for any­thing that’s pro­hib­ited.”

During the ques­tion­ing, agents re­peat­edly asked Tunick to un­lock his phone and warned they would seize it if he re­fused. When he fi­nally pro­vided a pass­code, the phone ap­peared to restart. The de­fense mo­tion states that “the screen went blank, flashed sev­eral times, and the phone ap­peared to restart,” re­sult­ing in the loss of data.

The wipe is now cen­tral to the case. Prosecutors are treat­ing it as an in­ten­tional act to de­stroy ev­i­dence, while the de­fense ar­gues that the search vi­o­lated Tunick’s con­sti­tu­tional rights and that the ev­i­dence should be sup­pressed.

The case raises ques­tions about which con­sti­tu­tional rights ap­ply at US bor­ders, in­clud­ing in­ter­na­tional air­ports, where au­thor­i­ties have broader search pow­ers. A judge is not ex­pected to rule on the de­fense mo­tion un­til at least late October.

GrapheneOS is de­signed to im­prove pri­vacy and se­cu­rity on Pixel phones. Supporters say those tools are le­git­i­mate se­cu­rity pro­tec­tions, not ev­i­dence of crim­i­nal in­tent. Boutry pointed to France and Spain, where au­thor­i­ties have strug­gled to gain ac­cess to se­cured de­vices. He said au­thor­i­ties have treated the use of GrapheneOS it­self as sus­pi­cious. In Catalonia, Spain, po­lice have been pro­fil­ing peo­ple car­ry­ing Pixel phones, as­sum­ing they have GrapheneOS in­stalled and are drug deal­ers or gang mem­bers.

“The main goal [of the op­er­at­ing sys­tem] is pro­tec­tion of pri­vacy,” Boutry said. “They’re our phones and the state can’t tell us how to use them.”

The case is tied to on­go­ing op­po­si­tion to Cop City, a $109 mil­lion po­lice train­ing fa­cil­ity that opened last spring. The pro­ject has drawn op­po­si­tion from ac­tivists con­cerned about po­lice mil­i­ta­riza­tion and en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pacts. Law en­force­ment of­fi­cials have de­fended it as nec­es­sary for train­ing and re­cruit­ment.

Previous at­tempts to pros­e­cute pro­test­ers at the state level have foundered, while fed­eral au­thor­i­ties have more re­cently stepped in, in­clud­ing a sep­a­rate in­dict­ment an­nounced last month.

A work­ing model of the PostgreSQL en­gine

load­ing the city code…

Early, un­re­viewed pro­to­type. It al­most cer­tainly con­tains in­ac­cu­ra­cies in both the model and ex­pla­na­tions. Found one? Open an is­sue or send a pull re­quest.

$35.95

CAD

HTMX 4.0, the first JavaScript li­brary to re­lease ex­clu­sively on the Game Boy® plat­form!

Experience the power of HTMX, now on your fa­vorite portable hand­held.

Four lev­els of pickle-col­lect­ing ex­cite­ment.  Squish client-side JS down to size, avoid slop and, if you have the skills, de­feat Warren to un­lock the htmx 4.0 source code!

Be the hero that the web needs!

Quality is guar­an­teed. If there is a print er­ror or vis­i­ble qual­ity is­sue, we’ll re­place or re­fund it.

Because the prod­ucts are made to or­der, we do not ac­cept gen­eral re­turns or siz­ing-re­lated re­turns.

GrapheneOS Discussion Forum

Ruff v0.16.0 is avail­able now! Install it from PyPI, or with your pack­age man­ager of choice:

uv tool in­stall ruff@lat­est

As a re­minder: Ruff is an ex­tremely fast Python lin­ter and for­mat­ter, writ­ten in Rust. Ruff can be used to re­place Black, Flake8 (plus dozens of plu­g­ins), isort, py­doc­style, pyup­grade, and more, all while ex­e­cut­ing tens or hun­dreds of times faster than any in­di­vid­ual tool.

Migrating to v0.16 #

Ruff v0.16 has a small num­ber of break­ing changes, al­low­ing most users to up­date with­out sig­nif­i­cant changes to code or con­fig­u­ra­tion. The main ex­cep­tion is de­scribed be­low.

Better de­fault rule set #

Ruff now en­ables 413 rules by de­fault, up from 59 in pre­vi­ous ver­sions.

Since Ruff’s de­fault rule set was last mod­i­fied in v0.1.0, the num­ber of rules in Ruff has grown from 708 to 968. Many of these rules catch se­vere is­sues, in­clud­ing syn­tax er­rors and im­me­di­ate run­time er­rors but were not pre­vi­ously en­abled by de­fault. With the new rule set, Ruff will bring these is­sues and many oth­ers to your at­ten­tion with­out any Ruff con­fig­u­ra­tion. Even if you’re al­ready us­ing se­lect or ex­tend-se­lect, we hope that this will draw your at­ten­tion to help­ful rules that you pre­vi­ously had­n’t dis­cov­ered.

The full list­ing of en­abled rules is too long to in­clude here, but you can find it on our new Default Rules page in the doc­u­men­ta­tion. A few of the high­lights in­clude rules from the pop­u­lar flake8-bug­bear (B) and pyup­grade (UP) lin­ters, as well as rules from our own RUF cat­e­gory.

If you want to re­vert to the old de­fault set, you can eas­ily se­lect the old rules with this con­fig­u­ra­tion:

[lint] se­lect = [“E4”, “E7″, “E9”, “F”]

We view this work as closely tied to our long­stand­ing goal of rule re­cat­e­go­riza­tion, so look for­ward to up­com­ing de­vel­op­ments in this area.

New fea­tures in v0.16 #

Ruff v0.16 also in­cludes sev­eral newly sta­bi­lized fea­tures that are high­lighted be­low.

Markdown code block for­mat­ting #

Ruff can now for­mat Python code blocks em­bed­ded in Markdown files.

In these files, Ruff v0.16 will for­mat fenced code blocks with a python, py, python3, py3, pyi, or py­con info string. pyi blocks are for­mat­ted like stub files, py­con blocks as REPL ses­sions, and the oth­ers use nor­mal Python file for­mat­ting. For ex­am­ple:

# README

Here’s an ex­am­ple:

```py im­port ruff

ruf­f_bi­nary = ( ruff.find­_ruf­f_bin() ) ```

will be re­for­mat­ted when run­ning ruff for­mat:

This can also be used to for­mat Quarto note­books be­cause Ruff still rec­og­nizes the lan­guage when sur­rounded by curly braces (e.g. ```{python}). Note that you may need to con­fig­ure your ex­ten­sion map­ping if your Quarto files use the .qmd ex­ten­sion.

If you need to sup­press for­mat­ting, you have sev­eral op­tions. If you want the sup­pres­sion com­ments to ap­pear in the code block, you can use nor­mal fmt: off and fmt: on com­ments within the code block it­self, or you can use sim­i­lar HTML com­ments to dis­able for­mat­ting for a whole re­gion of the doc­u­ment:

# README

<!– fmt: off –>

```py x = “this will be sup­pressed” ```

<!– fmt: on –>

To sup­press Markdown for­mat­ting en­tirely, you can use the nor­mal ex­tend-ex­clude set­ting to ex­clude all Markdown files with a glob like *.md.

See the full doc­u­men­ta­tion for more de­tails.

ruff: ig­nore com­ments of­fer new sup­pres­sion fea­tures #

Ruff now has its own sup­pres­sion com­ment for­mat that can be used on its own line.

In v0.15, the Ruff lin­ter gained a range sup­pres­sion mech­a­nism through paired ruff: dis­able and ruff: en­able com­ments, much like the fmt: off and fmt: on pair de­scribed above:

# ruff: dis­able[N803] def foo( lega­c­yArg1, lega­c­yArg2, lega­c­yArg3, lega­c­yArg4, ): … # ruff: en­able[N803]

Ruff v0.16 builds on this to add two ad­di­tional ruff sup­pres­sion com­ments. ruff: ig­nore can be used to sup­press a di­ag­nos­tic on the same line, like noqa, or on the fol­low­ing log­i­cal line:

im­port math # ruff: ig­nore[F401]

# ruff: ig­nore[N803] def foo( lega­c­yArg1, lega­c­yArg2, lega­c­yArg3, lega­c­yArg4, ): …

In this case, the log­i­cal line spans the whole func­tion header (from def to the colon), so the ruff: ig­nore sup­presses all of the same N803 di­ag­nos­tics as the dis­able/​en­able pair above.

ruff: file-ig­nore com­ments can be used to sup­press di­ag­nos­tics for the en­tire file, just like ruff: noqa com­ments:

# ruff: file-ig­nore[F401] Allow un­used im­ports in this file

im­port foo im­port bar im­port baz

As this ex­am­ple also shows, each of these com­ment kinds can have an as­so­ci­ated “reason” ex­plain­ing why they were added, in this case Allow un­used im­ports in this file.

ruff: ig­nore com­ments can be added au­to­mat­i­cally with the new –add-ignore CLI flag, and in pre­view, all of these ruff sup­pres­sion com­ments sup­port rule names in­stead of codes:

❯ echo ‘import math’ > try.py ❯ uvx ruff@lat­est check –preview –add-ignore try.py Added 1 ig­nore com­ment. ❯ cat try.py im­port math # ruff: ig­nore[un­used-im­port]

You can find the full spec­i­fi­ca­tion for all of these com­ments in the doc­u­men­ta­tion.

Fixes are now shown in check and for­mat –check out­put #

Ruff now shows the diff for lin­ter and for­mat­ter fixes when ren­der­ing di­ag­nos­tics.

Both the check and for­mat sub­com­mands have long sup­ported the –diff flag for show­ing the changes in­tro­duced by ap­ply­ing fixes with check –fix or for­mat, but this was sep­a­rate from the nor­mal out­put and sup­pressed the ac­com­pa­ny­ing ex­plana­tory di­ag­nos­tics. In v0.16, avail­able fixes are now shown as part of the de­fault full out­put for­mat, ren­dered be­low the help sub­di­ag­nos­tic:

The same is true for for­mat –check. Given the fol­low­ing in­put:

# ex­am­ple.py

if True: pass elif False: pass

The for­mat­ter pro­duces:

for­mat –check also now sup­ports the full se­lec­tion of out­put for­mats sup­ported by the lin­ter. You can use this to ob­tain ma­chine-read­able JSON out­put or pro­duce the for­mats ex­pected by GitHub and GitLab to ren­der an­no­ta­tions in CI, as just a cou­ple of ex­am­ples. See the CLI help or doc­u­men­ta­tion for the full list of sup­ported for­mats.

One fi­nal note on out­put for­mats is that there is a small break­ing change to the JSON out­put in v0.16. The file­name, lo­ca­tion, end_lo­ca­tion, fix.ed­its[].lo­ca­tion, and fix.ed­its[].end_lo­ca­tion fields may now be null rather than de­fault­ing to the empty string and row 1, col­umn 1, re­spec­tively. This should af­fect very few of Ruff’s ex­ist­ing di­ag­nos­tics but bet­ter re­flects the in­ter­nal di­ag­nos­tic rep­re­sen­ta­tion and may be­come more com­mon in fu­ture rules.

Rule sta­bi­liza­tions #

The fol­low­ing rules have been sta­bi­lized and are no longer in pre­view:

air­flow3-in­com­pat­i­ble-func­tion-sig­na­ture (AIR303)

miss­ing-copy­right-no­tice (CPY001)

un­nec­es­sary-from-float (FURB164)

sorted-min-max (FURB192)

im­plicit-string-con­cate­na­tion-in-col­lec­tion-lit­eral (ISC004)

log-ex­cep­tion-out­side-ex­cept-han­dler (LOG004)

in­valid-bool-re­turn-type (PLE0304)

too-many-po­si­tional-ar­gu­ments (PLR0917)

stop-it­er­a­tion-re­turn (PLR1708)

none-not-at-end-of-union (RUF036)

ac­cess-an­no­ta­tions-from-class-dict (RUF063)

du­pli­cate-en­try-in-dun­der-all (RUF068)

Other be­hav­ior sta­bi­liza­tions #

This re­lease also sta­bi­lizes some ad­di­tional be­hav­ior, pre­vi­ously only avail­able in pre­view mode:

blind-ex­cept (BLE001) is now sup­pressed when the ex­cep­tion is logged via log­ging meth­ods other than crit­i­cal, er­ror and ex­cep­tion.

fu­ture-re­quired-type-an­no­ta­tion (FA102) now checks for ad­di­tional PEP 585-compatible APIs, such as those from col­lec­tions.abc.

f-string-in-get-text-func-call (INT001), for­mat-in-get-text-func-call (INT002), and printf-in-get-text-func-call (INT003) now check for ad­di­tional com­mon ways of us­ing the get­text mod­ule, such as as­sign­ing it to builtins._.

sus­pi­cious-url-open-us­age (S310) now re­solves lo­cal string lit­eral bind­ings to avoid more false pos­i­tives.

snmp-in­se­cure-ver­sion (S508) and snmp-weak-cryp­tog­ra­phy (S509) now sup­port the rec­om­mended API from newer ver­sions of PySNMP.

typ­ing-text-str-alias (UP019) now rec­og­nizes typ­ing_ex­ten­sions.Text in ad­di­tion to typ­ing.Text.

Thank you! #

Thank you to every­one who pro­vided feed­back re­gard­ing the changes in­cluded in Ruff’s pre­view mode and to our con­trib­u­tors. It’s an honor build­ing Ruff with you!

View the full changelog on GitHub.

Read more about Astral — the com­pany be­hind Ruff.

Thanks to Zanie Blue, David Peter, Micha Reiser, and Alex Waygood who con­tributed to this blog post.

Please en­able JS and dis­able any ad blocker

Such a for­ma­tion, also called a cu­mu­lonim­bus flam­ma­gen­i­tus cloud, can be seen dur­ing vol­canic erup­tions — or, as in this case, when a wild­fire roasts the air near the ground, caus­ing it to rise quickly.

The ris­ing air cools and be­comes a cloud, or fire cloud: a tur­bu­lent mass that can gen­er­ate its own winds that worsen fires. If it be­comes very large it can even gen­er­ate light­ning.

Hitherto, they have only re­ally been seen in wild­fire-prone Australia and North America. NASA calls them the “fire-breathing dragon of clouds”.

What causes them?

FNSPF spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Eric Brocardi:

“The rise in ground tem­per­a­ture at the heart of the blaze is so ex­treme that the in­tense heat surges up­ward in a col­umn, meet­ing cooler air masses at the top. This con­tact cre­ates a py­rocu­mu­lonim­bus — or fire cloud — though un­for­tu­nately one de­void of mois­ture. This smoke cloud gen­er­ates its own weather sys­tem, caus­ing any­thing in its path to spon­ta­neously com­bust.

“Lightning forms within the cloud, strik­ing the em­bers on the ground and fur­ther fu­elling the fire … It pro­duces a low, rum­bling sound.

“While this type of fire oc­curs reg­u­larly in Canada and Australia, it is un­prece­dented in France.”

Can it be brought un­der con­trol?

“We are deal­ing with a so-called ‘convective’ fire that cre­ates its own winds — winds that con­stantly shift di­rec­tion, un­like a stan­dard fire that spreads in a con­i­cal pat­tern. The re­sult is that it spreads in every di­rec­tion and de­vel­ops mul­ti­ple fire fronts, mak­ing the sit­u­a­tion com­pletely un­pre­dictable.

“We don’t know how the blaze will spread; the fire front is con­stantly shift­ing. We can­not fight it di­rectly. It’s a David-versus-Goliath sce­nario: the idea is that, at some point, we’ll find a weak spot and strike there.

“Salvation will come ei­ther from the sky — in the form of rain, though it would need to pour heav­ily for three days — or by find­ing a way to steer the fire to­ward a place where it will die out on its own. The sea, for ex­am­ple.”

Do the fire­fight­ers have any hope?

“We have reached a point of ‘operational im­pos­si­bil­i­ty’ that re­quires us to ac­cept the need for strate­gic re­treat — to un­der­stand and ac­knowl­edge a nat­ural force be­yond our con­trol.

“It calls for … know­ing what can be done and, above all, what can­not. The sit­u­a­tion on the ground is de­fen­sive rather than of­fen­sive; it is a war-like sce­nario where we are un­der con­stant bom­bard­ment and must get every­one to safety.

“We re­alise we are fac­ing a sit­u­a­tion where we are pow­er­less. Yet, that pow­er­less­ness leaves no room for de­spair. It is cer­tain that all the ef­forts be­ing made will yield re­sults. It is out of the ques­tion for the fire­fight­ers to feel that their work on the ground is in vain.

“Every sin­gle ac­tion — de­fend­ing crit­i­cal sites, res­cu­ing an­i­mals — breathes new life into their ef­forts, dri­ven by their fierce de­ter­mi­na­tion. There is a sup­port force ready to re­lieve them.

“However, not all fire­fight­ers from across France can sim­ply con­verge here, be­cause the risk ex­ists every­where. We have to hold the line.”

(Interviewed by AFP jour­nal­ist Juliette Collen)

© 2026 AFP

London Gatwick has be­come the first UK air­port to in­tro­duce ro­botic park­ing, al­low­ing pas­sen­gers to leave their car in a pri­vate drop-off cabin. Autonomous ro­bots park it in a se­cure stor­age area and car own­ers don’t need to hand over their keys.

The new ser­vice, launched in part­ner­ship with Stanley Robotics, is now avail­able to book ahead of its first cus­tomer jour­neys in August. Eliminating the has­sle of search­ing for a park­ing space, the tech­nol­ogy gets pas­sen­gers from their car to the ter­mi­nal more quickly while mak­ing more ef­fi­cient use of air­port park­ing ca­pac­ity.

How Gatwick’s ro­botic park­ing works

Instead of dri­ving around a car park look­ing for an avail­able space, pas­sen­gers sim­ply drive into a pri­vate en­closed cabin near the South Terminal and scan their book­ing.

After park­ing the ve­hi­cle in­side the cabin, they leave the car and keep their keys. A Stanley Robotics au­tonomous park­ing ro­bot then slides un­der­neath the ve­hi­cle, lifts it by its tyres and trans­ports it to a se­cure stor­age area.

Passengers pro­vide their re­turn flight de­tails dur­ing the book­ing process, al­low­ing the sys­tem to mon­i­tor their ar­rival and have the ve­hi­cle wait­ing in a col­lec­tion cabin when they re­turn.

The fa­cil­ity is within walk­ing dis­tance of the South Terminal, al­though a free shut­tle bus is also avail­able.

No need to hand over your keys

Unlike tra­di­tional valet park­ing, pas­sen­gers re­tain pos­ses­sion of their keys through­out their trip.

According to London Gatwick, this of­fers ad­di­tional peace of mind while the au­to­mated sys­tem han­dles park­ing and re­trieval.

If pas­sen­gers ac­ci­den­tally leave an es­sen­tial item in the ve­hi­cle af­ter drop-off, on-site staff will be avail­able to re­trieve emer­gency items.

Helping air­ports use park­ing space more ef­fi­ciently

Robotic park­ing sys­tems are de­signed to im­prove the cus­tomer ex­pe­ri­ence while also max­imis­ing the num­ber of ve­hi­cles that can be stored within a given foot­print.

Because no one needs to ac­cess the ve­hi­cles once parked, cars can be po­si­tioned much closer to­gether than in a con­ven­tional car park. This helps air­ports in­crease park­ing ca­pac­ity with­out build­ing ad­di­tional park­ing in­fra­struc­ture.

Stanley Robotics has de­ployed sim­i­lar sys­tems in­ter­na­tion­ally. The Gatwick in­stal­la­tion is its first de­ploy­ment at a UK air­port.

Supporting Gatwick’s fu­ture growth

Oli Bedford, Head of Airport Access, Marketing and Commercial Products at London Gatwick, de­scribed the ser­vice as “a real game-changer.”

“It’s quick, easy and com­pletely has­sle-free — and you even get to keep your keys, giv­ing ex­tra peace of mind while you’re en­joy­ing your hol­i­day,” Bedford said.

Stanley Robotics CEO Clément Boussard said the tech­nol­ogy would help ad­dress fu­ture park­ing de­mand as the air­port con­tin­ues to grow.

“We are thrilled to part­ner with London Gatwick, a global leader in avi­a­tion, to de­ploy our so­lu­tion and ad­dress their crit­i­cal park­ing ca­pac­ity chal­lenges as they pre­pare for sig­nif­i­cant growth,” Boussard said. “This pro­ject marks a ma­jor mile­stone for Stanley Robotics in the UK, and we are proud to bring our in­no­v­a­tive tech­nol­ogy to one of the world’s most for­ward-think­ing air­ports.”

Gatwick ro­botic park­ing ve­hi­cle re­quire­ments

The ro­botic park­ing ser­vice at Gatwick is avail­able for most stan­dard pas­sen­ger cars, sub­ject to the fol­low­ing lim­its:

Maximum weight: 2.6 tonnes

Maximum height: 2.3 me­tres

Maximum wheel­base: 3.3 me­tres

Maximum wheel di­am­e­ter: 21 inches

The ser­vice must be booked in ad­vance. Same-day drive-up park­ing is not avail­able.

AI CODE CREATIONGitHub CopilotWrite bet­ter code with AIGitHub Copilot ap­pDi­rect agents from is­sue to mergeMCP RegistryNewIntegrate ex­ter­nal tools­DE­VEL­OPER WORKFLOWSActionsAutomate any work­flow­Code­spacesIn­stant dev en­vi­ron­mentsIs­sue­s­Plan and track work­Code ReviewManage code changesCode QualityEnforce qual­ity at mergeAP­PLI­CA­TION SECURITYGitHub Advanced SecurityFind and fix vul­ner­a­bil­i­ti­esCode se­cu­ri­ty­Se­cure your code as you build­Se­cret pro­tec­tion­Stop leaks be­fore they star­t­EX­PLOREWhy GitHubDocumentationBlogChangelogMarketplaceView all fea­tures

AI CODE CREATIONGitHub CopilotWrite bet­ter code with AIGitHub Copilot ap­pDi­rect agents from is­sue to mergeMCP RegistryNewIntegrate ex­ter­nal tools

AI CODE CREATION

GitHub CopilotWrite bet­ter code with AI

GitHub CopilotWrite bet­ter code with AI

GitHub Copilot ap­pDi­rect agents from is­sue to merge

GitHub Copilot ap­pDi­rect agents from is­sue to merge

MCP RegistryNewIntegrate ex­ter­nal tools

MCP RegistryNewIntegrate ex­ter­nal tools

DEVELOPER WORKFLOWSActionsAutomate any work­flow­Code­spacesIn­stant dev en­vi­ron­mentsIs­sue­s­Plan and track work­Code ReviewManage code changesCode QualityEnforce qual­ity at merge

DEVELOPER WORKFLOWS

ActionsAutomate any work­flow

ActionsAutomate any work­flow

CodespacesInstant dev en­vi­ron­ments

CodespacesInstant dev en­vi­ron­ments

IssuesPlan and track work

IssuesPlan and track work

Code ReviewManage code changes

Code ReviewManage code changes

Code QualityEnforce qual­ity at merge

Code QualityEnforce qual­ity at merge

APPLICATION SECURITYGitHub Advanced SecurityFind and fix vul­ner­a­bil­i­ti­esCode se­cu­ri­ty­Se­cure your code as you build­Se­cret pro­tec­tion­Stop leaks be­fore they start

APPLICATION SECURITY

GitHub Advanced SecurityFind and fix vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties

GitHub Advanced SecurityFind and fix vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties

Code se­cu­ri­ty­Se­cure your code as you build

Code se­cu­ri­ty­Se­cure your code as you build

Secret pro­tec­tion­Stop leaks be­fore they start

Secret pro­tec­tion­Stop leaks be­fore they start

EXPLOREWhy GitHubDocumentationBlogChangelogMarketplace

EXPLORE

Why GitHub

Documentation

Blog

Changelog

Marketplace

View all fea­tures

BY COMPANY SIZEEnterprisesSmall and medium teamsStar­tup­sNon­prof­itsBY USE CASEApp ModernizationDevSecOpsDevOpsCI/CDView all use cas­esBY INDUSTRYHealthcareFinancial ser­vices­Man­u­fac­tur­ing­Gov­ern­mentView all in­dus­triesView all so­lu­tions

BY COMPANY SIZEEnterprisesSmall and medium teamsStar­tup­sNon­prof­its

BY COMPANY SIZE

Enterprises

Small and medium teams

Startups

Nonprofits

BY USE CASEApp ModernizationDevSecOpsDevOpsCI/CDView all use cases

BY USE CASE

App Modernization

DevSecOps

DevOps

CI/CD

View all use cases

BY INDUSTRYHealthcareFinancial ser­vices­Man­u­fac­tur­ing­Gov­ern­mentView all in­dus­tries

BY INDUSTRY

Healthcare

Financial ser­vices

Manufacturing

Government

View all in­dus­tries

View all so­lu­tions

EXPLORE BY TOPICAISoftware DevelopmentDevOpsSecurityView all top­ic­sEX­PLORE BY TYPECustomer sto­rie­sEv­ents & we­bi­na­rsE­books & re­ports­Busi­ness in­sights­GitHub SkillsSUPPORT & SERVICESDocumentationCustomer sup­port­Com­mu­nity fo­rumTrust cen­ter­Part­nersView all re­sources

EXPLORE BY TOPICAISoftware DevelopmentDevOpsSecurityView all top­ics

EXPLORE BY TOPIC

AI

Software Development

DevOps

Security

View all top­ics

EXPLORE BY TYPECustomer sto­rie­sEv­ents & we­bi­na­rsE­books & re­ports­Busi­ness in­sights­GitHub Skills

EXPLORE BY TYPE

Customer sto­ries

Events & we­bi­nars

Ebooks & re­ports

Business in­sights

GitHub Skills

SUPPORT & SERVICESDocumentationCustomer sup­port­Com­mu­nity fo­rumTrust cen­ter­Part­ners

SUPPORT & SERVICES

Documentation

Customer sup­port

Community fo­rum

Trust cen­ter

Partners

View all re­sources

COMMUNITYGitHub SponsorsFund open source de­vel­op­er­sPRO­GRAMSSe­cu­rity LabMaintainer CommunityAcceleratorGitHub StarsArchive ProgramREPOSITORIESTopicsTrendingCollections

COMMUNITYGitHub SponsorsFund open source de­vel­op­ers

COMMUNITY

GitHub SponsorsFund open source de­vel­op­ers

GitHub SponsorsFund open source de­vel­op­ers

PROGRAMSSecurity LabMaintainer CommunityAcceleratorGitHub StarsArchive Program

PROGRAMS

Security Lab

Maintainer Community

Accelerator

GitHub Stars

Archive Program

REPOSITORIESTopicsTrendingCollections

REPOSITORIES

Topics

Trending

Collections

ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONSEnterprise plat­for­mAI-pow­ered de­vel­oper plat­for­mAVAIL­ABLE ADD-ONSGitHub Advanced SecurityEnterprise-grade se­cu­rity fea­turesCopi­lot for BusinessEnterprise-grade AI fea­ture­sPremium SupportEnterprise-grade 24/7 sup­port