The Photo page brings Hollywood’s most ad­vanced color tools to still pho­tog­ra­phy for the first time! Whether you’re a pro­fes­sional col­orist look­ing to ap­ply your skills to fash­ion shoots and wed­dings, or a pho­tog­ra­pher who wants to work be­yond the lim­its of tra­di­tional photo ap­pli­ca­tions, the Photo page un­locks the tools you need. Start with fa­mil­iar photo tools in­clud­ing white bal­ance, ex­po­sure and pri­mary color ad­just­ments, then switch to the Color page for ac­cess to the full DaVinci color grad­ing toolset trusted by Hollywood’s best col­orists! You can use DaVinci’s AI toolset as well as Resolve FX and Fusion FX. GPU acceleration lets you ex­port faster than ever be­fore!

For pho­tog­ra­phers, the Photo page of­fers a fa­mil­iar set of tools along­side DaVinci’s pow­er­ful color grad­ing ca­pa­bil­i­ties. It includes na­tive RAW sup­port for Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony and even iPhone ProRAW. All image pro­cess­ing takes place at source res­o­lu­tion up to 32K, or over 400 megapix­els, so you’re never lim­ited to pro­ject res­o­lu­tion. Familiar ba­sic ad­just­ments in­clud­ing white bal­ance, ex­po­sure, color and sat­u­ra­tion give you a com­fort­able start­ing point. With non-de­struc­tive pro­cess­ing you can re­frame, crop and re-in­ter­pret your orig­i­nal sen­sor data at any time. And with GPU ac­cel­er­a­tion, en­tire al­bums can be processed dra­mat­i­cally faster than con­ven­tional photo ap­pli­ca­tions!

The Photo page Inspector gives you pre­cise con­trol over the trans­form and crop­ping pa­ra­me­ters of your im­ages. Reframe and crop non-de­struc­tively at the orig­i­nal source res­o­lu­tion and as­pect ra­tio, so you’re never re­stricted to a fixed time­line size! Zoom, po­si­tion, ro­tate and flip im­ages with full trans­form con­trols and use the crop­ping pa­ra­me­ters to trim the edges of any im­age with pre­ci­sion. Reframe a shot to im­prove com­po­si­tion, ad­just for a spe­cific ra­tio for print or so­cial me­dia use, or sim­ply re­move un­wanted el­e­ments from the edges of a frame. All adjustments can be re­fined or re­set at any time with­out ever af­fect­ing the orig­i­nal source file!

DaVinci Resolve is the world’s only post pro­duc­tion soft­ware that lets every­one work to­gether on the same pro­ject at the same time! Built on a pow­er­ful cloud based work­flow, you can share al­bums, all as­so­ci­ated meta­data and tags, as well as grades and ef­fects with col­orists, pho­tog­ra­phers and re­touch­ers any­where in the world. Blackmagic Cloud sync­ing keeps every col­lab­o­ra­tor with the lat­est ver­sion of your im­age li­brary in real time, and re­mote re­view­ers can ap­prove grades off­site with­out need­ing to be in the same room. Hollywood col­orists can even grade live fash­ion shoots re­motely, all while the pho­tog­ra­pher is still on set!

The Photo page gives you every­thing you need to man­age your en­tire im­age li­brary from im­port to com­ple­tion. You can im­port pho­tos di­rectly, from your Apple Photos li­brary or Lightroom, and or­ga­nize them with tags, rat­ings, fa­vorites and key­words for fast, flex­i­ble man­age­ment of even the largest li­braries. It supports all stan­dard RAW files and im­age types. AI IntelliSearch lets you in­stantly search across your en­tire pro­ject to find ex­actly what you’re look­ing for, from ob­jects to peo­ple to an­i­mals! Albums al­low you to build and man­age col­lec­tions for any pro­ject and with a sin­gle click you can switch be­tween your photo li­brary and your color grad­ing work­flow!

Albums are a pow­er­ful way to build and man­age photo col­lec­tions di­rectly in DaVinci Resolve. You can add im­ages man­u­ally to each al­bum or or­ga­nize by date, cam­era, star rat­ing, EXIF data and more. Powerful fil­ter and sort tools give you to­tal con­trol over how your col­lec­tion is arranged. The thumbnail view dis­plays each im­age’s graded ver­sion along­side its file name and source clip for­mat so you can see your grades at a glance. Create mul­ti­ple grade ver­sions of any im­age, all ref­er­enc­ing the orig­i­nal source file, so you can ex­plore dif­fer­ent looks with­out ever du­pli­cat­ing a file. Plus, grades ap­plied to one photo can be in­stantly copied across oth­ers in the al­bum for a fast, con­sis­tent look!

Connect Sony or Canon cam­eras di­rectly to DaVinci Resolve for teth­ered shoot­ing with full live view! Adjust cam­era set­tings in­clud­ing ISO, ex­po­sure and white bal­ance with­out leav­ing the page and save im­age cap­ture pre­sets to es­tab­lish a con­sis­tent look be­fore you shoot. Images can be cap­tured di­rectly into an al­bum, with al­bums cre­ated au­to­mat­i­cally dur­ing cap­ture so your li­brary is per­fectly or­ga­nized from the mo­ment you start shoot­ing. Grade im­ages as they ar­rive us­ing DaVinci Resolve’s ex­ten­sive color toolset and use a hard­ware panel for hands-on cre­ative con­trol in a col­lab­o­ra­tive shoot. That means you can cap­ture, grade and or­ga­nize an en­tire shoot with­out leav­ing DaVinci Resolve!

The Photo page gives you ac­cess to over 100 GPU and CPU ac­cel­er­ated Resolve FX and spe­cialty AI tools for still im­age work. They’re or­ga­nized by cat­e­gory in the Open FX li­brary and cover every­thing from color ef­fects, blurs and glows to im­age re­pair, skin re­fine­ment and cin­e­matic light­ing tools. These are the same tools used by Hollywood col­orists and VFX artists on the world’s biggest pro­duc­tions, now avail­able for still im­ages. To add an ef­fect, drag it to any node. Whether you’re mak­ing sub­tle beauty re­fine­ments for a fash­ion shoot or ap­ply­ing dra­matic film looks and at­mos­pheric light­ing ef­fects em­u­lat­ing the looks of a Hol­ly­wood fea­ture, the Photo page has the tools you need!

Magic Mask makes pre­cise se­lec­tions of sub­jects or back­grounds, while Depth Map gen­er­ates a 3D map of your scene to sep­a­rate fore­ground and back­ground with­out man­ual mask­ing. Use together to grade dif­fer­ent depths of an im­age in­de­pen­dently for re­sults that have never be­fore been pos­si­ble for stills!

Add a re­al­is­tic light source to any photo af­ter cap­ture with Relight FX. Relight an­a­lyzes the sur­faces of faces and ob­jects to re­flect light nat­u­rally across the im­age. Combine with Magic Mask to light a sub­ject in­de­pen­dently from the back­ground, turn­ing flat por­traits into stun­ning fash­ion im­ages!

Face re­fine­ment au­to­mat­i­cally masks dif­fer­ent parts of a face, sav­ing count­less hours of man­ual work. Sharpen eyes, re­move dark cir­cles, smooth skin, and color lips. Ultra Beauty sep­a­rates skin tex­ture from color for nat­ural, high end re­sults, while AI Blemish Removal han­dles fast skin re­pair!

The Film Look Creator lets you add cin­e­matic looks that repli­cate film prop­er­ties like ha­la­tion, bloom, grain and vi­gnetting. Adjust ex­po­sure in stops and use sub­trac­tive sat­u­ra­tion, rich­ness and split tone con­trols to achieve looks usu­ally found on the big screen, now for your still im­ages!

AI SuperScale uses the DaVinci AI Neural Engine to up­scale low res­o­lu­tion im­ages with ex­cep­tional qual­ity. The enhanced mode is specif­i­cally de­signed to re­move com­pres­sion ar­ti­facts, mak­ing it the per­fect tool for rescal­ing low qual­ity pho­tos or frame grabs up to 4x their orig­i­nal res­o­lu­tion!

UltraNR is a DaVinci AI Neural Engine dri­ven de­noise mode in the Color page’s spa­tial noise re­duc­tion palette. Use it to dra­mat­i­cally re­duce dig­i­tal noise from an im­age while main­tain­ing im­age clar­ity. Use with spa­tial noise re­duc­tion to smooth out dig­i­tal grain or scan­ner noise while keep­ing fine hair and eye edges sharp.

Sample an area of a scene to quickly cover up un­wanted el­e­ments, like ob­jects or even blem­ishes on a face. The patch re­placer has a fan­tas­tic auto grad­ing fea­ture that will seam­lessly blend the cov­ered area with the sur­round­ing color data. Perfect for re­mov­ing sen­sor dust.

The Quick Export op­tion makes it fast and easy to de­liver fin­ished im­ages in a wide range of com­mon for­mats in­clud­ing JPEG, PNG, HEIF and TIFF. Export ei­ther an en­tire al­bum or just se­lected pho­tos pro­vid­ing flex­i­bil­ity to meet your spe­cific de­liv­ery needs. You can set the res­o­lu­tion, bit depth, qual­ity and com­pres­sion to en­sure your im­ages are op­ti­mized for their in­tended use. Whether you’re ex­port­ing stand­alone im­ages for print, shar­ing on so­cial me­dia plat­forms or de­liv­er­ing graded files to a client, Quick Export has you cov­ered. All exports pre­serve your orig­i­nal photo EXIF meta­data, so cam­era set­tings, lo­ca­tion data and other im­por­tant in­for­ma­tion al­ways trav­els with your files.

The Photo page uses GPU ac­cel­er­ated pro­cess­ing to de­liver fast, ac­cu­rate re­sults across your en­tire work­flow. Process hun­dreds of RAW files in sec­onds with GPU ac­cel­er­ated de­cod­ing and ap­ply Resolve FX to your im­ages in real time. GPU acceleration also means batch ex­ports and con­ver­sions are dra­mat­i­cally faster than con­ven­tional photo ap­pli­ca­tions. On Mac, DaVinci Resolve is op­ti­mized for Metal and Apple Silicon, tak­ing full ad­van­tage of the lat­est hard­ware. On Windows and Linux, you get CUDA sup­port for NVIDIA GPUs, while the Windows ver­sion also fea­tures full OpenCL sup­port for AMD, Intel and Qualcomm GPUs. All this en­sures you get high per­for­mance re­sults on any sys­tem!

Hollywood col­orists have al­ways re­lied on hard­ware pan­els to work faster and more cre­atively and now pho­tog­ra­phers can too! The DaVinci Resolve Micro Color Panel is the per­fect com­pan­ion for photo grad­ing as it is com­pact enough to sit next to a lap­top and portable enough to take on lo­ca­tion for shoots. It features three high qual­ity track­balls for lift, gamma and gain ad­just­ments, 12 pri­mary cor­rec­tion knobs for con­trast, sat­u­ra­tion, hue, tem­per­a­ture and more. It even has a built in recharge­able bat­tery! DaVinci Resolve color pan­els let you ad­just mul­ti­ple pa­ra­me­ters at once, so you can cre­ate looks that are sim­ply im­pos­si­ble with a mouse and key­board.

Hollywood’s most pop­u­lar so­lu­tion for edit­ing, vi­sual ef­fects, mo­tion graph­ics, color cor­rec­tion and au­dio post pro­duc­tion, for Mac, Windows and Linux. Now supports Blackmagic Cloud for col­lab­o­ra­tion!

The most pow­er­ful DaVinci Resolve adds DaVinci Neural Engine for au­to­matic AI re­gion track­ing, stereo­scopic tools, more Resolve FX fil­ters, more Fairlight FX au­dio plu­g­ins and ad­vanced HDR grading.

Includes large search dial in a de­sign that in­cludes only the spe­cific keys needed for edit­ing. Includes Bluetooth with bat­tery for wire­less use so it’s more portable than a full sized key­board!

Editor panel specif­i­cally de­signed for multi-cam edit­ing for news cut­ting and live sports re­play. Includes but­tons to make cam­era se­lec­tion and edit­ing ex­tremely fast! Connects via Bluetooth or USB‑C.

Full sized tra­di­tional QWERTY ed­i­tor key­board in a pre­mium metal de­sign. Featuring a metal search dial with clutch, plus ex­tra edit, trim and time­code keys. Can be in­stalled in­set for flush mount­ing.

Powerful color panel gives you all the con­trol you need to cre­ate cin­e­matic im­ages. Includes con­trols for re­fined color grad­ing in­clud­ing adding win­dows. Connects via Bluetooth or USB‑C.

Portable DaVinci color panel with 3 high res­o­lu­tion track­balls, 12 pri­mary cor­rec­tor knobs and LCDs with menus and but­tons for switch­ing tools, adding color nodes, HDR and sec­ondary grad­ing and more!

Designed in col­lab­o­ra­tion with pro­fes­sional Hollywood col­orists, the DaVinci Resolve Advanced Panel fea­tures a mas­sive num­ber of con­trols for di­rect ac­cess to every DaVinci color cor­rec­tion fea­ture.

Portable au­dio con­trol sur­face in­cludes 12 pre­mium touch sen­si­tive fly­ing faders, chan­nel LCDs for ad­vanced pro­cess­ing, au­toma­tion and trans­port con­trols plus HDMI for an ex­ter­nal graph­ics dis­play.

Get in­cred­i­bly fast au­dio edit­ing for sound en­gi­neers work­ing on tight dead­lines! Includes LCD screen, touch sen­si­tive con­trol knobs, built in search dial and full key­board with multi func­tion keys.

Used by Hollywood and broad­cast­ers, these large con­soles make it easy to mix large pro­jects with a mas­sive num­ber of chan­nels and tracks. Modular de­sign al­lows cus­tomiz­ing 2, 3, 4, or 5 bay consoles!

Fairlight stu­dio con­sole legs at 0º an­gle for when you re­quire a flat work­ing sur­face. Required for all Fairlight Studio Consoles.

Fairlight stu­dio con­sole legs at 8º angle for when you re­quire a slightly an­gled work­ing sur­face. Required for all Fairlight Studio Consoles.

Features 12 mo­tor­ized faders, ro­tary con­trol knobs il­lu­mi­nated but­tons for pan, solo, mute and call, plus bank se­lect but­tons.

12 groups of touch sen­si­tive ro­tary con­trol knobs and il­lu­mi­nated but­tons, as­sign­a­ble to fader strips, sin­gle chan­nel or mas­ter bus.

Get quick ac­cess to vir­tu­ally every Fairlight fea­ture! Includes a 12” LCD, graph­i­cal key­board, macro keys, trans­port con­trols and more.

Features HDMI, SDI in­puts for video and com­puter mon­i­tor­ing and Ethernet for graph­ics dis­play of chan­nel sta­tus and me­ters.

Empty 2 bay Fairlight stu­dio con­sole chas­sis that can be pop­u­lated with var­i­ous faders, chan­nel con­trols, edit and LCD monitors.

Empty 3 bay Fairlight stu­dio con­sole chas­sis that can be pop­u­lated with var­i­ous faders, chan­nel con­trols, edit and LCD monitors.

Empty 4 bay Fairlight stu­dio con­sole chas­sis that can be pop­u­lated with var­i­ous faders, chan­nel con­trols, edit and LCD monitors.

Empty 5 bay Fairlight stu­dio con­sole chas­sis that can be pop­u­lated with var­i­ous faders, chan­nel con­trols, edit and LCD monitors.

Use al­ter­na­tive HDMI or SDI tele­vi­sions and mon­i­tors when build­ing a Fairlight stu­dio con­sole.

Mounting bar with lo­cat­ing pins to al­low cor­rect align­ment of bay mod­ules when build­ing a cus­tom 2 bay Fairlight console.

Mounting bar with lo­cat­ing pins to al­low cor­rect align­ment of bay mod­ules when build­ing a cus­tom 3 bay Fairlight console.

Mounting bar with lo­cat­ing pins to al­low cor­rect align­ment of bay mod­ules when build­ing a cus­tom 4 bay Fairlight console.

Mounting bar with lo­cat­ing pins to al­low cor­rect align­ment of bay mod­ules when build­ing a cus­tom 5 bay Fairlight console.

Side arm kit mounts into Fairlight con­sole mount­ing bar and holds each fader, chan­nel con­trol and LCD mon­i­tor mod­ule.

Blank 1/3rd wide bay for build­ing a cus­tom con­sole with the ex­tra 1/3rd sec­tion. Includes blank in­fill pan­els.

Allows mount­ing stan­dard 19 inch rack mount equip­ment in the chan­nel con­trol area of the Fairlight stu­dio con­sole.

Blank panel to fill in the chan­nel con­trol area of the Fairlight stu­dio con­sole.

Blank panel to fill in the LCD mon­i­tor area of the Fairlight stu­dio con­sole when you’re not us­ing the stan­dard Fairlight LCD monitor.

Blank panel to fill in the fader con­trol area of the Fairlight stu­dio con­sole.

Adds 3 MADI I/O con­nec­tions to the sin­gle MADI on the ac­cel­er­a­tor card, for a to­tal of 256 inputs and out­puts at 24 bit and 48kHz.

Add up to 2,000 tracks with real time pro­cess­ing of EQ, dy­nam­ics, 6 plug‑ins per track, plus MADI for ex­tra 64 inputs and out­puts.

Adds ana­log and dig­i­tal con­nec­tions, pre­amps for mics and in­stru­ments, sam­ple rate con­ver­sion and sync at any stan­dard frame rate.

Large pull re­quests are hard to re­view, slow to merge, and prone to con­flicts. Reviewers lose con­text, feed­back qual­ity drops, and the whole team slows down. Stacked PRs solve this by break­ing big changes into a chain of small, fo­cused pull re­quests that build on each other — each one in­de­pen­dently re­view­able.

A stack is a se­ries of pull re­quests in the same repos­i­tory where each PR tar­gets the branch of the PR be­low it, form­ing an or­dered chain that ul­ti­mately lands on your main branch.

GitHub un­der­stands stacks end-to-end: the pull re­quest UI shows a stack map so re­view­ers can nav­i­gate be­tween lay­ers, branch pro­tec­tion rules are en­forced against the fi­nal tar­get branch (not just the di­rect base), and CI runs for every PR in the stack as if they were tar­get­ing the fi­nal branch.

While the gh stack CLI makes the lo­cal work­flow seam­less, it is en­tirely op­tional. You can cre­ate and man­age Stacked PRs di­rectly via the GitHub UI, the API, or your stan­dard Git work­flow. If you choose to use the CLI, it han­dles cre­at­ing branches, man­ag­ing re­bases, push­ing to GitHub, and cre­at­ing PRs with the cor­rect base branches. On GitHub, the PR UI gives re­view­ers the con­text they need — a stack map for nav­i­ga­tion, fo­cused diffs for each layer, and proper rules en­force­ment.

When you’re ready to merge, you can merge all or a part of the stack. Each PR can be merged di­rectly or through the merge queue. If you want to merge mul­ti­ple PRs at once (e.g., the bot­tom two PRs in a stack), sim­ply wait for CI to pass on those spe­cific lay­ers, and you can merge them in a sin­gle step. After a merge, the re­main­ing PRs in the stack are au­to­mat­i­cally re­based so the low­est un­merged PR tar­gets the up­dated base branch.

Ready to dive in? Start with the Quick Start guide or read the full overview.

TLDR: Despite claim­ing to backup all your data, Backblaze qui­etly stopped back­ing up OneDrive and Dropbox fold­ers - along with po­ten­tially many other things.

For ten years I have been us­ing Backblaze for my per­sonal com­puter backup. Before 2015 I would backup files to one of two large ex­ter­nal hard discs. I then ro­tated these dri­ves be­tween, first my fa­ther’s house, and af­ter I moved to the UK, my of­fice draw­ers.

In 2015 Backblaze seemed like a good bet. Unlike Crashplan their soft­ware was­n’t a bloated Java app, but they did have un­lim­ited stor­age. If you could cram it into your PC they would back it up. With their yearly Hard Drive re­views mak­ing good press, a lot of per­sonal rec­om­men­da­tions from my friends and col­leagues, their ser­vice sounded great. I in­stalled the soft­ware, ran it for sev­eral weeks, and sure enough my data was safely stored in their cloud.

I had fur­ther rea­son to be im­pressed when sev­eral years later one of my hard dri­ves failed. I made use of their “send me a hard drive with my stuff on it ser­vice”. A drive turned up filled with my pre­cious data. That for me was proof that this sys­tem worked, and that it worked well.

And so I rec­om­mended Backblaze for years. What do you do for backup? I would ex­toll the virtues of Backblaze, and they made many sales from such rec­om­men­da­tions.

There were a few things I did­n’t like. The app, could use a lot of mem­ory, es­pe­cially af­ter do­ing a large im­port of pho­tographs. The web­site, which I of­ten used to re­store sin­gle files or fold­ers, was slow and clunky to use. The win­dows app in par­tic­u­lar was clunky with an early 2000s aes­thetic and cramped lists. There was the time they leaked all your file­names to Facebook, but they prob­a­bly fixed that.

But no mat­ter, small prob­lems for the peace of mind of hav­ing all my files backed up.

Backup soft­ware is meant to back up your files. Which files? Well the files you need. Given every­one is dif­fer­ent, with dif­fer­ent work­flows and file­types, the ideal thing is to back up all your files. No backup provider knows what I will need in the fu­ture. The provider must plan ac­cord­ingly.

My first trou­bling dis­cov­ery was in 2025, when I made sev­eral er­rors then did a push -f to GitHub and blew away the git his­tory for a half decade old repo. No data was lost, but the log of changes was. No prob­lem I thought, I’ll just re­store this from Backblaze. Sadly it was not to be. At some point Backblaze had started to ig­nore .git fold­ers.

This an­noyed me. Firstly I needed that folder and Backblaze had let me down. Secondly within the Backblaze pref­er­ences I could find no way to re-en­able this. In fact look­ing at the list of ex­clu­sions I could find no men­tion of .git what­so­ever.

This made me won­der - I had checked the ex­clu­sions list when I in­stalled Backblaze 9 years be­fore, had I missed it? Had I missed any­thing else?

Well les­son learned I guess, but then a week ago I came across this thread on red­dit: “Doesn’t back up Dropbox folder??”. A user was sur­prised to find their Dropbox folder no longer be­ing backed up. Alarmed I logged into Backblaze, and lo and be­hold, my OneDrive folder was miss­ing.

Backblaze has one job, and ap­par­ently they are un­able to do that job. Back up my stuff. But they have de­cided not to.

Lets take an aside.

A rea­son­able per­son might point out those files on OneDrive are al­ready be­ing backed up - by OneDrive! No. Dropbox and OneDrive are for file sync­ing - sync­ing your files to the cloud. They of­fer lim­ited pro­tec­tion. OneDrive and Dropbox only re­tain deleted files for one month. Backblaze has one year file re­ten­tion, or if you pay per GB, un­lim­ited re­ten­tion. While OneDrive re­tains ver­sion changes for longer, Dropbox only re­tains ver­sion changes for a month - again un­less you pay for more. Your files are less se­cure and less backed up when you stick them in a cloud stor­age provider folder com­pared to just be­ing on your desk­top.

And that’s as­sum­ing your cloud provider is play­ing ball. If Microsoft or Dropbox bans your ac­count you may find your­self with no backup what­so­ever.

For me the larger is­sue is they never told us. My OneDrive folder sits at 383GB. You would think that hav­ing de­cided to no longer back this up I might get an email, and alert or some other no­ti­fi­ca­tion. Of course not.

Nestled into their re­lease notes un­der “Improvements” we see:

The Backup Client now ex­cludes pop­u­lar cloud stor­age providers from backup, in­clud­ing both mount points and cache di­rec­to­ries. This pre­vents per­for­mance is­sues, ex­ces­sive data us­age, and un­in­tended up­loads from ser­vices like OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, iDrive, and oth­ers. This change aligns with Backblaze’s pol­icy to back up only lo­cal and di­rectly con­nected stor­age.

First, I would hardly call this change in pol­icy an im­prove­ment, its hard to imag­ine any­one read­ing this as any­thing other than a down­grade in ser­vice. Secondly does Backblaze be­lieve most of its users are read­ing their re­lease notes?

And if you joined to­day and looked at their list of file ex­clu­sions you would find no ref­er­ence to Dropbox or OneDrive. No men­tion of Git ei­ther.

Here’s the thing, to­day they don’t back up Git or OneDrive. Who’s to say to­mor­row they wont add to the list. Maybe some ob­scure file for­mat that’s crit­i­cal to your work flow. Or they will ig­nore a file ex­ten­sion that just hap­pens be the same as one used by your DAW or 3D Modelling soft­ware. And they won’t tell you this. They wont even list it on their site.

By de­cid­ing not to back up every­thing, Backblaze has made it as if they are back­ing up noth­ing.

But re­ally this feels like a promise bro­ken. Back in 2015 their web­site proudly pro­claimed:

All user data in­cluded by de­fault No re­stric­tions on file type or size

Protect the dig­i­tal mem­o­ries and files that mat­ter most to you.

File backup is a mat­ter of trust. You are pay­ing a monthly fee so that if and when things go wrong you can get your data back. By silently chang­ing the rules, Backblaze has not sim­ply eroded my trust, but swept it away.

I wrote this to warn you - Backblaze is no longer do­ing their part, they are no longer back­ing up your data. Some of your data sure, but not all of it.

Finally let me leave you with Backblaze’s own words from 2015:

They promised to sim­plify backup. They suc­ceeded - they don’t even do the backup part any­more.

Today, we are ex­pand­ing our spam poli­cies

to ad­dress a de­cep­tive prac­tice known as “back but­ton hi­jack­ing”, which will be­come an ex­plicit vi­o­la­tion of the “malicious prac­tices” of spam poli­cies, lead­ing to po­ten­tial spam ac­tions.

When a user clicks the “back” but­ton in the browser, they have a clear ex­pec­ta­tion: they want to re­turn to the pre­vi­ous page. Back but­ton hi­jack­ing breaks this fun­da­men­tal ex­pec­ta­tion. It oc­curs when a site in­ter­feres with a user’s browser nav­i­ga­tion and pre­vents them from us­ing their back but­ton to im­me­di­ately get back to the page they came from. Instead, users might be sent to pages they never vis­ited be­fore, be pre­sented with un­so­licited rec­om­men­da­tions or ads, or are oth­er­wise just pre­vented from nor­mally brows­ing the web.

Why are we tak­ing ac­tion?

We be­lieve that the user ex­pe­ri­ence comes first. Back but­ton hi­jack­ing in­ter­feres with the browser’s func­tion­al­ity, breaks the ex­pected user jour­ney, and re­sults in user frus­tra­tion. People re­port feel­ing ma­nip­u­lated and even­tu­ally less will­ing to visit un­fa­mil­iar sites. As we’ve stated be­fore, in­sert­ing de­cep­tive or ma­nip­u­la­tive pages into a user’s browser his­tory has al­ways been against our Google Search Essentials.

We’ve seen a rise of this type of be­hav­ior, which is why we’re des­ig­nat­ing this an ex­plicit vi­o­la­tion of our ma­li­cious prac­tices

pol­icy, which says:

Malicious prac­tices cre­ate a mis­match be­tween user ex­pec­ta­tions and the ac­tual out­come,

lead­ing to a neg­a­tive and de­cep­tive user ex­pe­ri­ence, or com­pro­mised user se­cu­rity or pri­vacy.

Pages that are en­gag­ing in back but­ton hi­jack­ing may be sub­ject to man­ual spam ac­tions

or au­to­mated de­mo­tions, which can im­pact the site’s per­for­mance in Google Search re­sults. To give site own­ers time to make any needed changes, we’re pub­lish­ing this pol­icy two months in ad­vance of en­force­ment on June 15, 2026.

What should site own­ers do?

Ensure you are not do­ing any­thing to in­ter­fere with a user’s abil­ity to nav­i­gate their browser his­tory.

If you’re cur­rently us­ing any script or tech­nique that in­serts or re­places de­cep­tive or ma­nip­u­la­tive pages into a user’s browser his­tory that pre­vents them from us­ing their back but­ton to im­me­di­ately get back to the page they came from, you are ex­pected to re­move or dis­able it.

Notably, some in­stances of back but­ton hi­jack­ing may orig­i­nate from the site’s in­cluded li­braries or ad­ver­tis­ing plat­form. We en­cour­age site own­ers to thor­oughly re­view their tech­ni­cal im­ple­men­ta­tion and re­move or dis­able any code, im­ports or any con­fig­u­ra­tions that are re­spon­si­ble for back but­ton hi­jack­ing, to en­sure a help­ful and non-de­cep­tive ex­pe­ri­ence for users.

If your site has been im­pacted by a man­ual ac­tion and you have fixed the is­sue, you can al­ways let us know by sub­mit­ting a re­con­sid­er­a­tion re­quest

in Search Console. For ques­tions or feed­back, feel free to reach out on so­cial me­dia or dis­cuss in our help com­mu­nity.

jj is the name of the CLI for Jujutsu. Jujutsu is a DVCS, or “distributed ver­sion con­trol sys­tem.” You may be fa­mil­iar with other DVCSes, such as git, and this tu­to­r­ial as­sumes you’re com­ing to jj from git.

So why should you care about jj? Well, it has a prop­erty that’s pretty rare in the world of pro­gram­ming: it is both sim­pler and eas­ier than git, but at the same time, it is more pow­er­ful. This is a pretty huge claim! We’re of­ten taught, cor­rectly, that there ex­ist trade­offs when we make choices. And “powerful but com­plex” is a very com­mon trade­off. That power has been worth it, and so peo­ple flocked to git over its pre­de­ces­sors.

What jj man­ages to do is cre­ate a DVCS that takes the best of git, the best of Mercurial (hg), and syn­the­size that into some­thing new, yet strangely fa­mil­iar. In do­ing so, it’s man­aged to have a smaller num­ber of es­sen­tial tools, but also make them more pow­er­ful, be­cause they work to­gether in a cleaner way. Furthermore, more ad­vanced jj us­age can give you ad­di­tional pow­er­ful tools in your VCS sand­box that are very dif­fi­cult with git.

I know that sounds like a huge claim, but I be­lieve that the rest of this tu­to­r­ial will show you why.

There’s one other rea­son you should be in­ter­ested in giv­ing jj a try: it has a git com­pat­i­ble back­end, and so you can use jj on your own, with­out re­quir­ing any­one else you’re work­ing with to con­vert too. This means that there’s no real down­side to giv­ing it a shot; if it’s not for you, you’re not giv­ing up all of the his­tory you wrote with it, and can go right back to git with no is­sues.

Chicago-based mu­sic su­per­fan Aadam Jacobs has been record­ing the con­certs he at­tends since the 1980s, amass­ing an archive of over 10,000 tapes. Now 59, Jacobs knows that these cas­settes are go­ing to de­grade over time, so he agreed to let vol­un­teers from the Internet Archive, the non­profit dig­i­tal li­brary, dig­i­tize the tapes.

So far, about 2,500 of these tapes have been posted on the Internet Archive, in­clud­ing some rare gems like a Nirvana per­for­mance from 1989. (The group would­n’t break through to main­stream au­di­ences un­til they re­leased the sin­gle “Smells Like Teen Spirit” in 1991.) Within the col­lec­tion, you can also find pre­vi­ously un­known record­ings from in­flu­en­tial artists like Sonic Youth, R. E.M., Phish, Liz Phair, Pavement, Neutral Milk Hotel, and a whole bunch of other punk groups.

For many of these record­ings, Jacobs was us­ing pretty mediocre equip­ment, but the vol­un­teer au­dio en­gi­neers work­ing with the Internet Archive have made these tapes sound great.

One vol­un­teer, Brian Emerick, dri­ves to Jacobs’ house once a month to pick up more boxes of tapes — he has to use anachro­nis­tic cas­sette decks to play the tapes, which get con­verted into dig­i­tal files. From there, other vol­un­teers clean up, or­ga­nize, and la­bel the record­ings, even track­ing down song names from for­got­ten punk bands.

Sometimes, the in­ter­net is good. And so is this Tracy Chapman record­ing from 1988.

Lean proved this pro­gram was cor­rect; then I found a bug.

I fuzzed a ver­i­fied im­ple­men­ta­tion of zlib and found a buffer over­flow in the Lean run­time.

AI agents are get­ting very good at find­ing vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties in large-scale soft­ware sys­tems.

Anthropic, was ap­par­ently so spooked by the vul­ner­a­bil­ity-dis­cov­ery ca­pa­bil­i­ties of Mythos, they de­cided not to re­lease it as it was “too dan­ger­ous” (lol). Whether you be­lieve the hype about these lat­est mod­els or not, it seems un­de­ni­able that the writ­ing is on the wall:

The cost of dis­cov­er­ing se­cu­rity bugs is col­laps­ing, and the vast ma­jor­ity of soft­ware run­ning to­day was never built to with­stand that kind of scrutiny. We are fac­ing a loom­ing soft­ware cri­sis.

In the face of this on­com­ing tsunami, re­cently there has been in­creas­ing in­ter­est in for­mal ver­i­fi­ca­tion as a so­lu­tion. If we state and prove prop­er­ties about our code us­ing a me­chan­i­cal tool, can we build ro­bust, se­cure and sta­ble soft­ware that can over­come this on­com­ing bar­rage of at­tacks?

One re­cent de­vel­op­ment in the Lean ecosys­tem has taken steps to­wards this ques­tion. 10 agents au­tonomously built and proved an im­ple­men­ta­tion of zlib, lean-zip, an im­pres­sive land­mark re­sult. Quoting from Leo De Moura, the chief ar­chi­tect of the Lean FRO (here):

With apolo­gies for the AI-slop (Leo has a pen­chant for it, it seems), the key re­sult is that lean-zip is not just an­other im­ple­men­ta­tion of zlib. It is an im­ple­men­ta­tion that has been ver­i­fied as cor­rect end to end, guar­an­teed by Lean to be en­tirely free of im­ple­men­ta­tion bugs.

What does “verified as cor­rect” ac­tu­ally look like? Here is one of the main the­o­rems (github):

For any byte ar­ray less than 1 gi­ga­byte, call­ing

ZlibDecode.decompressSingle on the out­put of ZlibEncode.compress

pro­duces the orig­i­nal data. The de­com­press func­tion is ex­actly the in­verse of com­pres­sion. This pair of func­tions is en­tirely cor­rect.

I pointed a Claude agent at lean-zip over a week­end, armed with AFL++, AddressSanitizer, Valgrind, and UBSan. Over 105 mil­lion fuzzing

ex­e­cu­tions, it found:

Zero mem­ory vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties in the ver­i­fied Lean ap­pli­ca­tion code.

A heap buffer over­flow in the Lean 4 run­time (lean_alloc_sarray), af­fect­ing every ver­sion of Lean to date. (bug re­port, pend­ing fix)

A de­nial-of-ser­vice in lean-zip’s archive parser, which was never ver­i­fied.

The setup for the ex­per­i­ment was quite sim­ple. I took the lean-zip

code­base and pro­duced a stripped down ver­sion and pointed Claude at it.

In par­tic­u­lar, as part of the setup: (1) I dropped all the­o­rems and spec­i­fi­ca­tions, (2) re­moved all mark­down doc­u­men­ta­tion, and (3) stripped out lean-zip’s C FFI bind­ings to zlib which it pro­vided as an al­ter­na­tive to its na­tive im­ple­men­ta­tion. What re­mained was purely the ver­i­fied code: the na­tive Lean de­f­i­n­i­tions for DEFLATE, gzip, ZIP archive han­dling, and tar. Any bug found in this would cor­re­spond to an er­ror in the ver­i­fied code.

The idea with drop­ping the­o­rems and doc­u­men­ta­tion was to avoid bi­as­ing the Claude agent by re­veal­ing that the code was ac­tu­ally ver­i­fied — I fig­ured if it knew the code “had no bugs” then it might pre-emp­tively give up, while op­er­at­ing in the blind might let it work through the soft­ware with­out bias.

With the lean im­ple­men­ta­tion ac­ces­si­ble through a CLI, I then spun up a server for the fuzzing ex­per­i­ments, pointed Claude at it, and let it go wild.

Over the course of a night, Claude launched 16 par­al­lel fuzzers across the 6 at­tack sur­faces of the li­brary: ZIP ex­tract, gzip de­com­press, raw DEFLATE in­flate, tar ex­tract, tar.gz, and com­pres­sion. It built sep­a­rate bi­na­ries with AddressSanitizer and UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer, ran Valgrind mem­check, used cp­pcheck and flawfinder for sta­tic analy­sis, crafted 48 hand-writ­ten ex­ploit files tar­get­ing known zlib CVE pat­terns.

Overall, this re­sulted in 105,823,818 fuzzing ex­e­cu­tions. 359 seed files. 16 fuzzers run­ning for ap­prox­i­mately 19 hours un­cov­er­ing 4

crash­ing in­puts, and 1 mem­ory vul­ner­a­bil­ity in the code.

The most sub­stan­tial find­ing was a heap buffer over­flow! but, not in

lean-zip’s code, but in the Lean run­time it­self.

The vul­ner­a­ble func­tion is lean_al­loc_sar­ray, which al­lo­cates all scalar ar­rays (ByteArray, FloatArray, etc.) in Lean 4:

For a ByteArray of ca­pac­ity n, the al­lo­ca­tion size is 24 + n. When n is close to SIZE_MAX (2^{64} - 1 on 64-bit sys­tems), the ad­di­tion wraps around to a small num­ber. The run­time al­lo­cates a tiny buffer of around 23 bytes, but the caller pro­ceeds to read n bytes into it.

The over­flow can be trig­gered through lean_io_prim_han­dle_read, the C func­tion back­ing IO. FS.Handle.read:

A 156-byte crafted ZIP file with a ZIP64 com­pressed­Size of

0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF is suf­fi­cient to trig­ger it. The same pat­tern ex­ists in lean_io_get_ran­dom_bytes. The bug af­fects every ver­sion of Lean 4 up to and in­clud­ing the lat­est nightly (v4.31.0-nightly-2026-04-11). The min­i­mal re­pro­ducer is 5 sim­ple lines:

def main : IO Unit := do

IO.FS.writeFile “test.bin” “hello”

let h ← IO.FS.Handle.mk “test.bin” .read

let n : USize := (0 : USize) - (1 : USize)  — SIZE_MAX

let _ ← h.read n  — over­flows in lean_al­loc_sar­ray

Edit: there is a pend­ing PR to lean to fix this.

AFL also found a de­nial-of-ser­vice in lean-zip’s own code. The

read­Ex­act func­tion in Archive.lean passes the com­pressed­Size

field from the ZIP cen­tral di­rec­tory straight to h.read with­out val­i­dat­ing it against the ac­tual file size (here):

def read­Ex­act (h : IO.FS.Handle) (n : Nat) … := do

while buf.size < n do

let re­main­ing := n - buf.size

let chunk ← h.read re­main­ing.toU­Size

– n comes from the ZIP header

A 156-byte ZIP claim­ing a com­pressed­Size of sev­eral ex­abytes causes the process to panic with INTERNAL PANIC: out of mem­ory, as h.read

al­lo­cates more mem­ory than avail­able. This is in­deed a bug: the sys­tem

un­zip han­dles this grace­fully, val­i­dat­ing header sizes against the file be­fore al­lo­cat­ing, while lean-zip does not and crashes with an OOM.

The OOM de­nial-of-ser­vice is straight­for­ward: the archive parser was never ver­i­fied. lean-zip’s proofs cover the com­pres­sion and de­com­pres­sion pipeline (DEFLATE, Huffman, CRC32, roundtrip cor­rect­ness), but Archive.lean, the mod­ule that reads ZIP head­ers and ex­tracts files, has zero the­o­rems even in the orig­i­nal un­stripped code­base. The com­pressed­Size field is read from an un­trusted header and passed di­rectly to an al­lo­ca­tion with­out val­i­da­tion. The sit­u­a­tion is rem­i­nis­cent of Yang et al.’s CSmith work (PLDI 2011), which found that CompCert’s ver­i­fied op­ti­mi­sa­tion passes had zero bugs while its

un­ver­i­fied front-end did. Verification works where it is ap­plied. The archive parser was where lean-zip was not ver­i­fied.

The heap buffer over­flow is more fun­da­men­tal. lean_al­loc_sar­ray is a C++ func­tion in the Lean run­time, part of the trusted com­put­ing

base. Every Lean proof as­sumes the run­time is cor­rect. A bug here does not just af­fect lean-zip. It af­fects every Lean 4 pro­gram that al­lo­cates a ByteArray.

The pos­i­tive re­sult here is ac­tu­ally the re­mark­able one. Across 105 mil­lion ex­e­cu­tions, the ap­pli­ca­tion code (that is, ex­clud­ing the run­time) had zero heap buffer over­flows, zero use-af­ter-free, zero stack buffer over­flows, zero un­de­fined be­hav­iour (UBSan clean), and zero out-of-bounds ar­ray reads in the Lean-generated C code. To quote Claude’s own as­sess­ment of the code­base (without know­ing it was ver­i­fied):

This is gen­uinely one of the most mem­ory-safe code­bases I’ve an­a­lyzed. The Lean type sys­tem with de­pen­dent types and well-founded re­cur­sion has elim­i­nated en­tire classes of bugs that plague C/C++ zip im­ple­men­ta­tions. The CVE classes that have plagued zlib for decades are struc­turally im­pos­si­ble in this code­base.

The two bugs that were found both sat out­side the bound­ary of what the proofs cover. The de­nial-of-ser­vice was a miss­ing spec­i­fi­ca­tion. The heap over­flow was a deeper is­sue in the trusted com­put­ing base, the C++ run­time that the en­tire proof ed­i­fice as­sumes is cor­rect (and now

has a PR ad­dress­ing).

Overall ver­i­fi­ca­tion re­sulted in a re­mark­ably ro­bust and rig­or­ous code­base. AFL and Claude had a re­ally hard time find­ing er­rors. But they did still find is­sues. Verification is only as strong as the ques­tions you think to ask and the foun­da­tions you choose to trust.

Telefónica Audiovisual Digital, la di­visión de la op­er­adora de tele­co­mu­ni­ca­ciones que dirige la plataforma de Movistar Plus+, con­siguió el pasado 23 de marzo una nueva res­olu­ción ju­di­cial que le ha­bilita a aplicar nuevos blo­queos rela­ciona­dos no solo con el fút­bol, sino con otros de­portes e in­cluso con­tenidos de en­treten­imiento.

Internet sufre en España desde febrero de 2025 prob­le­mas de conec­tivi­dad cada vez que hay un par­tido de fút­bol rel­e­vante de LaLiga. La pa­tronal de los clubes, de la mano de Telefónica, con­siguió en los juz­ga­dos una au­tor­ización para blo­quear de forma dinámica di­rec­ciones IP que son de­tec­tadas par­tic­i­pando en la di­fusión de sus con­tenidos sin per­miso. De la misma forma que en una calle hay muchas vivien­das, en una di­rec­ción IP hay alo­jadas miles de webs, que quedan in­ac­ce­si­bles cuando esta se blo­quea. Cada fin de se­m­ana, el sis­tema orques­tado por Javier Tebas in­ter­fiere en el ac­ceso a nu­merosas webs legí­ti­mas, como ha re­cono­cido el pro­pio Gobierno.

Fuera de las com­peti­ciones de LaLiga, du­rante el ho­rario del resto del fút­bol, los usuar­ios podían uti­lizar la red con nor­mal­i­dad, pero esto de­jará de ser así tan pronto como hoy. Antonio Lorenzo de ElEconomista ade­lanta la ex­is­ten­cia de una nueva au­tor­ización para ex­ten­der los blo­queos.

A falta de ver el texto de la sen­ten­cia y según la in­for­ma­ción del artículo, en esta ocasión el pro­mo­tor de los nuevos blo­queos es Telefónica en soli­tario a través de su di­visión au­dio­vi­sual. El Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona ha au­tor­izado el blo­queo dinámico de webs que di­fun­den con­tenidos ilíc­i­tos propiedad de Telefónica.

La in­for­ma­ción habla tanto de blo­queos de do­min­ios, URLs y de di­rec­ciones IP, caso este úl­timo que, cuando se pro­duce, afecta a ser­vi­cios legí­ti­mos si se trata de di­rec­ciones pertenecientes a ser­vi­cios CDN como Cloudflare.

Lo blo­queos apli­carán “todos los días de emisión de even­tos de­portivos en di­recto”, ar­ran­cando por primera vez con el par­tido de elim­i­na­to­ria de la Champions League en­tre el Atlético de Madrid y el Barcelona que se cel­e­bra hoy martes 14 de abril. Continuará el miér­coles con el Bayern de Múnich - Real Madrid. Además, según el di­ario se repe­tirá “en otros acon­tec­imien­tos de­portivos, como tor­neos de te­nis o de golf, tanto en emi­siones en di­recto como en pelícu­las y se­ries”.

La au­tor­ización tiene una novedad im­por­tante. Y es que no afecta solo a las prin­ci­pales op­er­ado­ras como ocurre con los blo­queos de LaLiga, sino que se dirige, además de a las mar­cas de Movistar, MásOrange, Vodafone y Digi, “al resto de pe­queños y me­di­anos op­er­adores que ofre­cen sus ser­vi­cios de ac­ceso a la red de ám­bito na­cional, re­gional y lo­cal”. Estas op­er­ado­ras recibirán proce­dentes de Telefónica, los lis­ta­dos de “direcciones IP como de URL y nom­bres de do­minio uti­liza­dos para la di­fusión ilícita”.

I wrote to Flock’s pri­vacy con­tact to opt out of their do­mes­tic spy­ing pro­gram:

I am a res­i­dent of California. As such, and be­cause you are sub­ject to the CCPA, delete all in­for­ma­tion about me, my ve­hi­cle, and other house­hold mem­bers from all of your data­bases. I do not give you per­mis­sion to col­lect or store data about me, my ve­hi­cles, or my rel­a­tives, in any fu­ture sit­u­a­tion.

Dear [misspelled name, i.e. not copied and pasted],

Your re­quest can­not be com­pleted at this time.

Thank you for sub­mit­ting your pri­vacy re­quest. At this time, we are un­able to process this re­quest for the rea­sons de­tailed be­low.

Flock Safety pro­vides its ser­vices to our cus­tomers, and our cus­tomers are own­ers and con­trollers of the data Flock Safety processes on their be­half. Flock Safety processes data as a ser­vice provider and proces­sor for our cus­tomers and as a re­sult, we are un­able to di­rectly ful­fill your re­quest. We rec­om­mend con­tact­ing the or­ga­ni­za­tion that en­gaged Flock Safety’s ser­vices to sub­mit your re­quest, as they are re­spon­si­ble for as­sess­ing and re­spond­ing to it.

Here are a few ad­di­tional points about Flock Safety’s data col­lec­tion and pri­vacy prac­tices:

* Customer Contracts: Flock Safety’s pro­cess­ing ac­tiv­ity as a ser­vice provider and proces­sor is gov­erned by the con­tract we have with our cus­tomers, which cap­tures their in­struc­tions and the lim­i­ta­tions on how Flock Safety may process their data. Flock Safety’s cus­tomers own the data and make all de­ci­sions around how such data is used and shared.

* No Sale of Data: Because Flock Safety’s cus­tomers own the data, Flock Safety may only process the data in ac­cor­dance with our cus­tomer’s in­struc­tions, as out­lined in our con­tracts with cus­tomers. Flock Safety is not per­mit­ted to sell, pub­lish, or ex­change such data for our own com­mer­cial pur­poses.

* Information Collected: Where Flock Safety’s cus­tomers lever­age License Plate Reader (LPR) tech­nol­ogy, the LPRs do not process sen­si­tive in­for­ma­tion like names or ad­dresses. Instead, LPRs only cap­ture im­ages of pub­licly avail­able and vis­i­ble ve­hi­cle char­ac­ter­is­tics that are taken in the pub­lic view.

* Purpose: Flock Safety cus­tomers use data for se­cu­rity pur­poses, in­clud­ing man­ag­ing pub­lic safety or re­spond­ing to safety con­cerns and re­ports. Additionally, such data may be used to help solve crimes and pro­vide ob­jec­tive ev­i­dence.

* Retention: By de­fault, Flock Safety’s sys­tems only re­tain data for 30 days, which means that any data col­lected on be­half of cus­tomers is per­ma­nently hard deleted on a rolling 30 day ba­sis. Flock Safety cus­tomers are able to ad­just this re­ten­tion pe­riod based on their lo­cal laws or poli­cies.

For more in­for­ma­tion about how Flock Safety processes data, please re­fer to our Privacy Policy and LPR Policy.

I think that’s legally in­ac­cu­rate. They’re the en­tity col­lect­ing and pro­cess­ing my per­son­ally iden­ti­fi­able in­for­ma­tion, and my non-lawyer read­ing of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) would seem to ob­lig­ate them to com­ply with my re­quest. I haven’t de­cided to en­gage a lawyer yet, but nei­ther have I ruled it out.

AI ex­perts and the pub­lic’s opin­ion on the tech­nol­ogy are in­creas­ingly di­verg­ing, ac­cord­ing to Stanford University’s an­nual re­port on the AI in­dus­try, which was re­leased Monday. In par­tic­u­lar, the re­port noted a grow­ing trend of anx­i­ety around AI and, in the U. S., con­cerns about how the tech­nol­ogy will im­pact key so­ci­etal ar­eas, such as jobs, med­ical care, and the econ­omy.

The re­port’s find­ings fol­low grow­ing neg­a­tive sen­ti­ment about AI, with Gen Z re­port­edly lead­ing the way, ac­cord­ing to a re­cent Gallup poll. The study found that young peo­ple were grow­ing less hope­ful and more an­gry about the tech­nol­ogy, even though around half of the de­mo­graphic was us­ing AI ei­ther daily or weekly.

For some work­ing in tech, the AI back­lash has come as a sur­prise. AI lead­ers have fo­cused on man­ag­ing the pos­si­bil­ity of Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI — a the­o­ret­i­cal form of AI su­per­in­tel­li­gence that could per­form any task a hu­man could do and think for it­self. But every­day folks are more con­cerned about AI’s im­pact on their pay­check and whether or not their power bills will go up as en­ergy-hun­gry data cen­ters are built.

The di­vide has been most ap­par­ent in the on­line re­ac­tion to the re­cent at­tacks on OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s home. In posts on X , for in­stance, AI in­sid­ers voiced sur­prise at a se­ries of Instagram com­ments that seemed to praise the at­tack on Altman’s home. Some of the on­line com­ments have a sim­i­lar vibe to those that cir­cu­lated on­line af­ter the shoot­ing of the United Healthcare CEO in 2024 and the more re­cent burn­ing of a Kimberly-Clark ware­house by a worker an­gry about not re­ceiv­ing a “livable wage” — with some com­ments even go­ing so far as to sug­gest that even more ac­tion, akin to a rev­o­lu­tion, is needed.

Stanford’s re­port pro­vides more in­sight into where all this neg­a­tiv­ity is com­ing from, as it sum­ma­rizes data around pub­lic sen­ti­ment of AI across var­i­ous sources.

For in­stance, it pointed to a re­port from Pew Research pub­lished last month, which noted that only 10% of Americans said they were more ex­cited than con­cerned about the in­creased use of AI in daily life. Meanwhile, 56% of AI ex­perts said they be­lieved AI would have a pos­i­tive im­pact on the U. S. over the next 20 years.

Expert opin­ion and pub­lic sen­ti­ment also greatly di­verged in par­tic­u­lar ar­eas where AI could have a so­ci­etal im­pact. Indeed, 84% of ex­perts, the re­port au­thors noted, said that AI would have a largely pos­i­tive im­pact on med­ical care over the next 20 years, but only 44% of the U. S. gen­eral pub­lic said the same.

Plus, a ma­jor­ity (73%) of ex­perts felt pos­i­tive about AI’s im­pact on how peo­ple do their jobs, com­pared with just 23% of the pub­lic. And 69% of ex­perts felt that AI would have a pos­i­tive im­pact on the econ­omy. Given the sup­posed AI-fueled lay­offs and dis­rup­tions to the work­place, it’s not sur­pris­ing that only 21% of the pub­lic felt sim­i­larly.

Other data from Pew Research, cited by the re­port, noted that AI ex­perts were less pes­simistic on AI’s im­pact on the job mar­ket, while nearly two-thirds of Americans (or 64%) said they think AI will lead to fewer jobs over the next 20 years.

The U. S. also re­ported the low­est trust in its gov­ern­ment to reg­u­late AI re­spon­si­bly, com­pared with other na­tions, at 31%. Singapore ranked high­est at 81%, per data pulled from Ipsos found in Stanford’s re­port.

Another source looked at reg­u­la­tion con­cerns on a state-by-state level and con­cluded that, na­tion­wide, 41% of re­spon­dents said fed­eral AI reg­u­la­tion will not go far enough, while only 27% said it would go “too far.”

Despite the fears and con­cerns, AI did get one ac­co­lade: Globally, those who feel like AI prod­ucts and ser­vices of­fer more ben­e­fits than draw­backs slightly rose from 55% in 2024 to 59% in 2025.

But at the same time, those re­spon­dents who said that AI makes them “nervous” grew from 50% to 52% dur­ing the same pe­riod, per data cited by the re­port’s au­thors.