Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: And how the tech are you. I'm a little out
Speaker 1: of breath because if you listen to yesterday's episode you
Speaker 1: might have heard I, despite all of my precautionary behaviors,
Speaker 1: caught COVID apparently, and that's all sorts of fun. But
Speaker 1: the show, as they say, must keep going. I think
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm on pain killer. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: the news for today, Tuesday, February eight, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: and let's start off with some updates to a few
Speaker 1: stories that I have talked about in recent episodes. First up,
Speaker 1: the Nvidio bid for the semiconductor company ARM is a
Speaker 1: fish lee off the table in video had been pursuing
Speaker 1: a sixties six billion dollar acquisition of ARM, the British
Speaker 1: semiconductor company, but encountered numerous regulatory obstacles along the way. Now,
Speaker 1: I mentioned last week that it looked like this deal
Speaker 1: was falling apart, and now we can definitively say that
Speaker 1: the deal fell apart. Relatively recently, we've seen regulators in
Speaker 1: regions like the European Union, the United States, and the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom become more wary of large acquisitions and mergers,
Speaker 1: particularly in the tech world, but not exclusively to tech,
Speaker 1: and the proposed acquisition appears to be a victim of
Speaker 1: increased scrutiny of such proposed deals. I'm sure this comes
Speaker 1: as something of a relief to companies like Microsoft and Qualcom,
Speaker 1: both of which depend upon ARM manufactured chips, and neither
Speaker 1: of which would want to see in video get control
Speaker 1: of that part of the fly chain. As for ARM,
Speaker 1: it's current owner, which is the Asian conglomerate soft Bank,
Speaker 1: plans to prepare ARM for an initial public offering for
Speaker 1: later in the year, that is, to spend it off
Speaker 1: as a publicly traded company. Now we might see another
Speaker 1: tug of war happen on that front, because in the
Speaker 1: UK a lot of officials are really eager to see
Speaker 1: ARM a British company listed on the UK's stock market,
Speaker 1: but soft Bank seems inclined to instead list ARM on
Speaker 1: the New York Stock Exchange, where you might see a
Speaker 1: slightly better share price value listed initially so soft Bank
Speaker 1: can make back some of the money it's spent acquiring
Speaker 1: arm in the first place. Politics and business are fun,
Speaker 1: continuing to update stories. Earlier this month, news broke that
Speaker 1: the United States Internal Revenue Service or i r S,
Speaker 1: everyone's favorite department in the US, was planning to use
Speaker 1: a third party company for the purposes of authenticating people
Speaker 1: who are trying to access some online i r S services,
Speaker 1: and they would be doing that through facial recognition technology.
Speaker 1: The plan would have required people to submit a video
Speaker 1: selfie of themselves and then use a camera either on
Speaker 1: their phone or on a webcamp to verify their identity
Speaker 1: before they would be able to use certain features on
Speaker 1: the i r S website. Critics objected to this practice
Speaker 1: pretty quickly, pointing out that facial recognition technology has often
Speaker 1: proven to be unreliable, particularly for anyone who doesn't happen
Speaker 1: to be male and white. There's a pervasive issue with
Speaker 1: bias in facial recognition. Uh some products have more of
Speaker 1: a problem with this than others. In addition, critics argue
Speaker 1: that the requirement would put an unfair burden on people
Speaker 1: who don't have the access to smartphones or webcams, and
Speaker 1: thus create a deeper digital divide between the haves and
Speaker 1: the have nots, and because you know, everyone's supposed to
Speaker 1: file taxes, that's a real problem. And then there's the
Speaker 1: concern for privacy and security that comes along with using
Speaker 1: a private, third party company to work so closely with,
Speaker 1: you know, a government service like internal Revenue. That seems
Speaker 1: to raise a few more concerns. And now the I
Speaker 1: r S has walked back its decision, saying it's going
Speaker 1: to transition away from using this facial recognition technology which
Speaker 1: had already started to roll out, and that it will
Speaker 1: quote develop and bring online an additional authentication process that
Speaker 1: does not involve facial recognition end quote. Not too long ago,
Speaker 1: I dedicated an episode of tech Stuff to talk about Peloton,
Speaker 1: the company best known for its connected exercise bikes, also
Speaker 1: does treadmills and you take online spin classes from the
Speaker 1: comfort of your own basement, I mean home. And Peloton
Speaker 1: has had a pretty dramatic fall from grace over the
Speaker 1: last few months, with the company's sales slowing dramatically after
Speaker 1: a big spike early on in the pandemic. And then
Speaker 1: there are reportedly warehouses filled with Peloton products that just
Speaker 1: haven't sold, And there are also some pr issues that
Speaker 1: were exacerbated by a couple of fictional characters suffering fictional
Speaker 1: heart attacks after working on the bikes. Because that's the
Speaker 1: kind of world we live in. I guess where fictional
Speaker 1: character's death on a show can actually put a stigma
Speaker 1: against a company anyway. John Foley, the founder of Peloton
Speaker 1: and now former CEO, announced that he was stepping down
Speaker 1: from his leadership role. Um well, that leadership role fully
Speaker 1: has led Peloton ever since he came up with the
Speaker 1: idea more than a decade ago, and he will instead
Speaker 1: become the executive chair of the board of directors, so
Speaker 1: still very much, you know, part of the company. And
Speaker 1: a man named Barry McCarthy, who had served as chief
Speaker 1: financial officer of Spotify, another company that's been the hot
Speaker 1: seat recently, will become the new president and CEO of Peloton.
Speaker 1: Peloton's current president, William Lynch, is also stepping down. Foley
Speaker 1: and Lynch aren't the only two people at Peloton who
Speaker 1: will be updating their resumes. The Wall Street Journal reports
Speaker 1: that the company expects to cut about twenty percent of
Speaker 1: its workforce. That's around two thousand, eight hundred jobs. There
Speaker 1: have also been calls from activist shareholders to sell the
Speaker 1: company in order to get a little money back for
Speaker 1: those shareholders, because of course, share prices in Peloton have
Speaker 1: dropped more than fiftent this year. Although I saw a
Speaker 1: headline just before I started recording that suggests a lot
Speaker 1: of movement on that front, so it may be different
Speaker 1: by the time you hear this. Now. I just mentioned Spotify,
Speaker 1: so let's let's talk about that for a moment. First
Speaker 1: of all, Spotify and I Heart Radio or I Heart
Speaker 1: Media are competitors, and I work for I Heeart Media.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that up front because context is important, and
Speaker 1: also to say I'm not speaking on behalf of my
Speaker 1: employer in any way. I honestly don't know what anyone
Speaker 1: official and my heart thinks about what's going on at Spotify,
Speaker 1: and there's certainly no official company position that I can
Speaker 1: point to. So this is just me here, all right.
Speaker 1: With that out of the way, Spotify has been trying
Speaker 1: to walk a tight rope over the last few weeks,
Speaker 1: all thanks to Joe Rogan. Spotify famously signed Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: to an exclusive deal for his podcast for the princely
Speaker 1: sum of one hundred million dollars. It's a heck of
Speaker 1: a deal. So to get Rogan's podcast, you had to
Speaker 1: use Spotify anyway. A couple of weeks ago, several musicians
Speaker 1: began to pull their musical catalogs off of Spotify because
Speaker 1: of Rogan's tendency to spread COVID misinformation on his show.
Speaker 1: The musicians expressed concern about the dangers this post, considering
Speaker 1: Rogan's immense popularity. So Spotify's response was essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's Joe Rogan show. We just licensed the show
Speaker 1: from him. We don't take a hand in shaping the content.
Speaker 1: We're not editors. Who he chooses to have on his
Speaker 1: show and what he talks about are all up to him.
Speaker 1: So we're just the platform and as long as he
Speaker 1: doesn't violate our rules, the content stays. Those rules, by
Speaker 1: the way, weren't public facing, Like there was no way
Speaker 1: to see whether content was violent the rules if you
Speaker 1: were outside Spotify, so you couldn't judge that. Uh. The
Speaker 1: company subsequently then published those rules, so now they are
Speaker 1: public facing, but at the time they weren't. And then
Speaker 1: artists India are pulled her music off the platform because
Speaker 1: of Rogan's history of using racial slurs on his show.
Speaker 1: She actually shared a video montage of him doing so
Speaker 1: over the course of numerous episodes, and this time Spotify
Speaker 1: swept in and had behind the scenes discussions with Rogan
Speaker 1: on the matter, and subsequently Rogan pulled down more than
Speaker 1: a hundred of his past up episodes. Now The Verge
Speaker 1: published an article about this titled Spotify is more Confused
Speaker 1: about Joe Rogan than Ever, and The Verge pointed out
Speaker 1: that the racial slurs, while horrible, don't actually seem to
Speaker 1: violate Spotify's rules as they are written. It would take
Speaker 1: some loose interpretation of the rules to say, oh, this
Speaker 1: covers racial slurs as well, not that racial slurs aren't bad,
Speaker 1: they're terrible, but rather that Spotify it didn't seem like
Speaker 1: it was a direct violation of what Spotify's rules were.
Speaker 1: So the Verge poses, why can Spotify pressure Rogan to
Speaker 1: pull down those episodes in that case but do nothing
Speaker 1: in the case of COVID misinformation? And this is a
Speaker 1: really tough situation. On the one hand, creators value having
Speaker 1: freedom and authority over their own work. I get to
Speaker 1: choose what topics I cover for my show and how
Speaker 1: I cover them. My heart does not pressure me to
Speaker 1: do otherwise. You know, I might once in a while
Speaker 1: get a Rik West like, Hey, would you do a
Speaker 1: themed episode on such and such? But I can actually
Speaker 1: say yes or no to that, and the time, whatever
Speaker 1: the topic happens to be for that day is one
Speaker 1: that I just chose myself, and it's my own way
Speaker 1: of of expressing my thoughts on those topics. However, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, spreading this information and promoting harmful portrayals
Speaker 1: of people of color or giving white supremacists of platform,
Speaker 1: which Rogan has done in the past, undeniably that causes harm.
Speaker 1: And so you're left asking is it better to place
Speaker 1: tighter restrictions on content and affect the creator's process, or
Speaker 1: is it better to have the creator be free to
Speaker 1: send out whatever message they want, even if that message
Speaker 1: is harmful. Now, as a creator, I actually think tighter
Speaker 1: restrictions are the better alternative. I mean, I value my
Speaker 1: ability to say stuff, but I don't think that ability
Speaker 1: is more important than the safety and dignity of other people.
Speaker 1: I think that's way more important than oh God, you're
Speaker 1: not letting me say this word that I shouldn't say. Um,
Speaker 1: that's my own opinion, just my own personal opinion, not
Speaker 1: again meant to be any kind of official stance on
Speaker 1: the matter. All Right, we've got some more news stories
Speaker 1: to cover, but before we get to that, let's take
Speaker 1: a quick break. According to euro News, authorities in the
Speaker 1: EU are looking at the concept of the metaverse with
Speaker 1: regard to what, if any, regulations will need to be
Speaker 1: in place to protect citizens from what some call the
Speaker 1: future of the internet. In fact, Margreeth Vettiger, and I
Speaker 1: apologize for butchering that name, she's an EU representative from Denmark,
Speaker 1: went so far as to say, quote, the metaverse is
Speaker 1: here already, so of course we want we start analyzing
Speaker 1: what will be the role for a regulator, what is
Speaker 1: the role for our legislature end quote. I actually take
Speaker 1: issue with her statement that the metaverse is here are
Speaker 1: already because no one has really defined what the metaverse
Speaker 1: is or will be. There are a lot of kind
Speaker 1: of vague ideas and proposals of what metaverse will actually mean.
Speaker 1: Whenever we have something that we can definitively point to
Speaker 1: and say that is a metaverse, and there's some examples
Speaker 1: of stuff to have elements of some of those ideas,
Speaker 1: I mean, minecraft roadblocks and even Second Life come to
Speaker 1: mind as having some aspects of what people refer to
Speaker 1: when they're talking about metaverse concepts, but none of those
Speaker 1: seem to actually encompass everything that is brought to mind
Speaker 1: when that vague term metaverse has mentioned. However, there are
Speaker 1: definitely a lot of companies rushing into the metaverse space
Speaker 1: convinced that it is in fact going to be the
Speaker 1: future of the Internet. I'm still skeptical about that personally,
Speaker 1: but I have a long history of being wrong about
Speaker 1: this kind of stuff, and besides, I'm getting older and
Speaker 1: grouchier every day, so that could be affecting my perception anyway.
Speaker 1: It's clear that EU officials are looking ahead and trying
Speaker 1: to anticipate what sort of regulations will need to be
Speaker 1: in place in order to ensure that the meta verses,
Speaker 1: whatever those turn out to be, played by the use
Speaker 1: rules about citizen data, privacy and security. The EU has
Speaker 1: been very forward on those pushing for stronger and stronger
Speaker 1: regulations and turning from the metaverse to meta You know,
Speaker 1: the company formerly known as Facebook. We have a few
Speaker 1: more stories. For one, Meta has said it might actually
Speaker 1: shut down operations in Europe for Facebook and Instagram that is,
Speaker 1: the folks in Europe may one day find they can
Speaker 1: no longer access those platforms. Now why is that, Well,
Speaker 1: it all has to do with those data privacy laws
Speaker 1: and the EU I just referenced. See Facebook currently transfers
Speaker 1: data back and forth between the UK and the United States,
Speaker 1: or really the United States and everywhere else. Like if
Speaker 1: you lived in Africa, that data would be making its
Speaker 1: way back to the United States for processing and analyzing
Speaker 1: um and so in the European Union there are these
Speaker 1: transatlantic data transfers that happens so that Facebook can quote
Speaker 1: unquote offers services to European users. And by offer services,
Speaker 1: I suspect we're not just talking about features on Facebook
Speaker 1: and Instagram, but stuff like you know, targeted advertising. That
Speaker 1: that's part of what the data is being used for.
Speaker 1: But the use data protection laws are closing off the
Speaker 1: avenues that Facebook can legally use to transfer data from
Speaker 1: the European Union to the United States, largely because there
Speaker 1: are concerns that such data transfers could end up being
Speaker 1: mined by organizations like the National Security Agency or in
Speaker 1: essay here in the United States, and that EU citizens
Speaker 1: should not be subjected to that, especially without their consent,
Speaker 1: so that's what's at the heart here. And the EU
Speaker 1: has started to shut down some of the avenues that
Speaker 1: Facebook would use to send data back and forth, so
Speaker 1: that would mean Facebook would have to silo information in
Speaker 1: the European Union, it would have to set up operations
Speaker 1: in the EU specifically to handle all that in order
Speaker 1: to keep you know, it's its services essentially the same
Speaker 1: as they are now, rather than just having it shipped
Speaker 1: over to the United States that data. So they're essentially saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: if we can't transfer data back to the United States
Speaker 1: so that we can make use of it, we can't
Speaker 1: operate in the U, so we're gonna shut down now.
Speaker 1: I should also add that REPS that Meta have said
Speaker 1: the company doesn't actually have plans to shut down operations
Speaker 1: in the EU. Instead, they're sending the message that there
Speaker 1: needs to be some sort of official structure in place
Speaker 1: so that the company can continue on with business as usual. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: REPS and EU are essentially saying, you need us more
Speaker 1: than we need you. And in fact, Meta pulls about
Speaker 1: its ad revenue from Europe. About half of all revenue
Speaker 1: comes from North America and the remaining gets divvied up
Speaker 1: around the rest of the world. So the United States
Speaker 1: and Canada are the most important regions for Facebook when
Speaker 1: it comes to revenue, but the EU that's significant. So
Speaker 1: if Meta were not to comply, it could face some
Speaker 1: pretty significant finds in Europe. And at the moment, the
Speaker 1: matter is still one that's working its way through regulatory processes.
Speaker 1: So it may turn out this whole kerfuffle dies without
Speaker 1: much happening, but we'll have to keep an eye on it. Okay.
Speaker 1: Another story with Meta is that Peter Theel venture capitalist,
Speaker 1: who has long maintained a seat at Meta's board of directors,
Speaker 1: is stepping down from the board. Feel himself is a
Speaker 1: controversial figure, having become a prominent supporter of conservative politicians
Speaker 1: in including former US President Donald Trump. Now I say
Speaker 1: controversial because Trump of course got into hot water on
Speaker 1: Facebook and other online platforms by repeatedly violating policies of
Speaker 1: those platforms, including facebooks, and that necessitated his removal from
Speaker 1: those platforms. In fact, I think Facebook was the first
Speaker 1: one to do it. So, you know, Peter Theel being
Speaker 1: a supporter of Donald Trump, there was this question about
Speaker 1: whether his influence at the board level would cause Facebook
Speaker 1: to make bad decisions regarding its content moderation policies, and
Speaker 1: there were critics who were calling upon CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: to cut tiles with feel but Mark Toads didn't do that. Anyway,
Speaker 1: thel now appears to be interested in getting into politics himself,
Speaker 1: so he has stepped down from Facebook's board, which would
Speaker 1: absolutely be necessary before he could run for any kind
Speaker 1: of office without you know, tons of people jump being
Speaker 1: on his case for having conflicts of interest. Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the very important figure in Facebook's history and one
Speaker 1: that has had an increasingly um prominent role in supporting
Speaker 1: politics in the United States. As for Meta's version of
Speaker 1: the Metaverse, the company has recently made a change to
Speaker 1: its virtual reality social space called Horizon. It's got a
Speaker 1: couple of different Horizon products out there, like Horizon World,
Speaker 1: and the change now creates a virtual personal space perimeter
Speaker 1: around each avatar. And you might wonder why, Well, it's
Speaker 1: because people can be really awful, particularly in online spaces.
Speaker 1: We've already seen early users of Horizon come forward with
Speaker 1: complaints that they were being harassed in virtual spaces, some
Speaker 1: of them saying that others were attempting to virtually grope
Speaker 1: at them. And you know that might sound odd or
Speaker 1: maybe even funny to you, but you know, when you
Speaker 1: think about it, really is disturbing. Like first, I mean,
Speaker 1: you have no idea what someone else has been through
Speaker 1: in their life, and a virtual action like that could
Speaker 1: be triggering. Like if someone actually has been the target
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment or assault in their past, a virtual
Speaker 1: representation of that is incredibly distressing. Beyond that, a good
Speaker 1: virtual experience is really immersive. I mean, you know, they're
Speaker 1: there therapists out there who use virtual reality to help
Speaker 1: treat people who have various phobias as a kind of
Speaker 1: immersion therapy where the the person who has like the
Speaker 1: phobia can be exposed to a virtual representation of whatever
Speaker 1: it is that triggers the fear and get more accustomed
Speaker 1: to it without having to actually go in person and
Speaker 1: experience that firsthand. Like they have that safety net of
Speaker 1: it's a virtual experience. But I can tell you people
Speaker 1: have had their bodies react just as if they were
Speaker 1: in the real situation. So we know that these virtual
Speaker 1: experiences can have real psychological effects on us. So if
Speaker 1: you are the victim of assault, it can have a
Speaker 1: real psychological effect. Even though you know You're ostensibly safely
Speaker 1: at home in say your game room or office or whatever,
Speaker 1: and nothing quote unquote real is happening to you. Um,
Speaker 1: but yeah, having people blatantly deny you your personal space
Speaker 1: is just awful. So this new system in Horizon creates
Speaker 1: a two ft radius perimeter around every avatar by default,
Speaker 1: and that is meant to set the stage for behavioral
Speaker 1: norms within the metaverse. Now, keep in mind, this is
Speaker 1: just one way people could harass one another in virtual space,
Speaker 1: right to get all up into someone else's personal space.
Speaker 1: That's one way that you could really harass somebody, But
Speaker 1: there are lots of other ones, and Meta executive have
Speaker 1: already indicated that moderating the metaverse to counteract toxicity will
Speaker 1: be difficult, and actually, according to Andrew Bosworth of Meta,
Speaker 1: if you're talking about metaverse at scale, it will be
Speaker 1: practically impossible, which does not sound particularly fun to me. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've got a few more news stories to cover before
Speaker 1: we close out, but let's take another quick break. Let
Speaker 1: us turn our attention now to Apple. The company is
Speaker 1: also coming under fire recently, as eight state treasurers in
Speaker 1: the United States have contacted the Securities and Exchange Commission
Speaker 1: or SEC over allegations that Apple has been forcing employees
Speaker 1: to sign non disclosure agreements more commonly referred to as
Speaker 1: in DA's and use them as quote unquote concealment clauses. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, the allegation is that Apple co versus
Speaker 1: employees to sign an agreement that says the employee will
Speaker 1: not reveal the existence of unlawful acts committed by people
Speaker 1: within the company or facilitated by the company itself, that
Speaker 1: you are not allowed to talk about that outside of
Speaker 1: specific uh contexts within the company itself. You could not
Speaker 1: go to a lawyer, you could not go to the press.
Speaker 1: You weren't supposed to talk about to anyone. And the
Speaker 1: letter from these state treasurers urge urges the SEC to
Speaker 1: form rules that expressly forbid companies from using India's in
Speaker 1: order to silence employees and prevent reports of discrimination, harassment,
Speaker 1: and other illegal activities from being exposed outside the company. Further,
Speaker 1: the treasurers are accusing Apple of not just using India's
Speaker 1: in this way, but also then lying about that practice
Speaker 1: because Apple has said that it does not require employees
Speaker 1: to agree to concealment clauses, and so these allegations are
Speaker 1: stating that that's categorically false, and that Apple then misrepresented
Speaker 1: that when talking to official US regulators. The Treasurers are
Speaker 1: now calling for an investigation and potentially action against Apple
Speaker 1: should those allegations prove to be true. So that's still,
Speaker 1: you know, again, working its way through that process. We
Speaker 1: don't have anything hard to report on that yet, but
Speaker 1: it does seem to be an escalation of what has
Speaker 1: been called the Apple two movement t oo like me too.
Speaker 1: Over in Europe, Apple is facing more fines. The Authority
Speaker 1: for Consumers and Markets Department in the Netherlands has issued
Speaker 1: a fine for five million euros for the third week
Speaker 1: in a row, stating that Apple has failed to comply
Speaker 1: with an order to allow dating apps to offer alternative
Speaker 1: payment systems to Apple's own in app system. This ties
Speaker 1: in with a global story of Apple racing pressure to
Speaker 1: relinquish some control of the in app experience in iOS. So,
Speaker 1: in case you're not familiar with that, Apple's policy was
Speaker 1: that developers who created apps for iOS devices had and
Speaker 1: any of them that included in app purchases would have
Speaker 1: to use Apple's payment structure. So, in other words, let's
Speaker 1: say I create a game for iOS devices, and within
Speaker 1: the game, players can purchase different skins for their character
Speaker 1: so that they have a different appearance. Well, I would
Speaker 1: have to use apples in app payment structure for that,
Speaker 1: and that would give Apple a cut of each transaction,
Speaker 1: which ranged from fifteen depending upon the size of the
Speaker 1: developer that was, you know, submitting the app app. And
Speaker 1: because Apple controls the entire ecosystem for iOS apps, you
Speaker 1: either played by Apple's rules or your app would not
Speaker 1: get carried by Apple. And of course, you know, people
Speaker 1: know that the folks who own iPhones are more prone
Speaker 1: to in app purchases than other platforms, like even though
Speaker 1: there are way more Android systems out there, the people
Speaker 1: who spend the most money are those who have iOS systems.
Speaker 1: So that would represent a pretty lucrative vein of revenue
Speaker 1: for Apple. So Apple does not want to move away
Speaker 1: from that, obviously, because that revenue is an important stream
Speaker 1: for the company. So Apple has been resisting the push
Speaker 1: in various regions. They've been appealing court decisions that have
Speaker 1: ruled against Apple, commanding the company to allow alternative payment systems,
Speaker 1: and the company has been trying to reverse this trend
Speaker 1: with even the CEO making personal calls to lawmakers, but
Speaker 1: over in the EU, regulators are not budging, and they
Speaker 1: continue to levy fines on Apple for not complying or
Speaker 1: failing to show evidence that the company is complying. The
Speaker 1: current boutafines is, as I mentioned, five million euros a week,
Speaker 1: which has a maximum of fifty million euros, which is
Speaker 1: a lot of money, but for Apple it's kind of not.
Speaker 1: I mean, Apple's revenue in one was a reported three
Speaker 1: hundred sixty five point eight billion dollars and the profit
Speaker 1: was nearly nine billion dollars. So I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: seriously Apple is taking this just yet, or if the
Speaker 1: company is just more focused on fighting the legal battle
Speaker 1: to push back against this trend and an Apple future
Speaker 1: news The company has long been rumored to be working
Speaker 1: on a vehicle design sometimes called the Apple Car we're
Speaker 1: cheekily sometimes the I Car, and recently an Apple patent
Speaker 1: revealed that the company intends to incorporate machine learning into
Speaker 1: the design of the vehicle for the purposes of autonomous operation.
Speaker 1: So essentially, the conclusion is that the processors of today
Speaker 1: are just not up to the task of handling situations
Speaker 1: that can arise while driving. They're not fast enough to
Speaker 1: react properly for every kind of driving situation that you know.
Speaker 1: It's one thing to program for, say, collision detection or
Speaker 1: you know, lane assist and that kind of stuff, but
Speaker 1: it's another thing entirely to deal with all the possible
Speaker 1: scenarios that can pop up when you're on the road.
Speaker 1: If you are a driver, chances are there has been
Speaker 1: a situation at one point or another that you've never
Speaker 1: encountered before. Humans can typically react to those things in
Speaker 1: an instinctive way that you know can be successful, but
Speaker 1: a car that is following more you know, strict programming
Speaker 1: may not be able to and that's a problem. So
Speaker 1: machine learning could allow for a fleet of cars to
Speaker 1: share their collective experiences with one another. So let's just imagine,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a hypothetical. Imagine you've got a
Speaker 1: thousand autonomous cars on the road, and most of those
Speaker 1: cars are going to have relatively uneventful drives where nothing
Speaker 1: particularly unexpected happens, so they're not learning anything. Uh, there
Speaker 1: might be a few that have something that's a little
Speaker 1: out of the ordinary, so they have the potential to
Speaker 1: learn from those experiences, and you'll have a few, very
Speaker 1: few outliers, they will have truly unusual experiences. Uh those
Speaker 1: experiences and the car's reaction to those experiences can then
Speaker 1: build into the overall fleet's knowledge base. So Car number
Speaker 1: one can learn from the mistakes of Car one thousand,
Speaker 1: and that means cars wouldn't be learning just from their
Speaker 1: own mistakes, but from the mistakes and successes of all
Speaker 1: the other cars in the fleet. Now, this gets a
Speaker 1: little scary to think about because we're talking about large, heavy,
Speaker 1: fast moving vehicles here, and the word mistake is not
Speaker 1: much fun when you're thinking about it in those terms, right, Like,
Speaker 1: a mistake can be you know, life altering, it could
Speaker 1: be fatal. But on the other hand, this represents a
Speaker 1: way to build out how cars will react in different
Speaker 1: stations that can evolve far faster than if you were
Speaker 1: just programming each scenario independently, which would take you forever
Speaker 1: because you would never be able to account for every
Speaker 1: single possibility on the road. Is just that's just not feasible. Now,
Speaker 1: I should add that Apple is not the only company
Speaker 1: that has looked into this kind of approach where you're
Speaker 1: using machine learning and a fleet of vehicles to kind
Speaker 1: of improve individual car responses, but the patent does give
Speaker 1: us a rare glimpse into the ultra secret project of
Speaker 1: an Apple Car. Finally, some Australian researchers have bad news
Speaker 1: for alien lovers out there. The researchers used a powerful
Speaker 1: radio telescope array to focus on the galactic center of
Speaker 1: the Milky Way and they listened out for any signals
Speaker 1: that could indicate alien activity. In other words, they were
Speaker 1: looking for stuff what doesn't fit into the natural radio
Speaker 1: signals you would expect to find from the galactic center. Uh.
Speaker 1: They listen for around seven hours, and the report is
Speaker 1: that all is quiet on the galactic front. Their search
Speaker 1: was within a region known to have at least a
Speaker 1: hundred forty four exo planets in it. An exo planet
Speaker 1: is a planet that exists outside of our own Solar system.
Speaker 1: Now note, an exoplanet is not necessarily a planet that
Speaker 1: exists within the so called Goldilux zone. Uh. Those are
Speaker 1: planets that are known to be in a distance that's
Speaker 1: not too far nor too close from the host star
Speaker 1: of that planet's system, and so could potentially support life
Speaker 1: at least as we know it here on Earth. I
Speaker 1: mean a lot of other factors would have to be
Speaker 1: present too for that to be true. But one of
Speaker 1: them is that, well, the planet has to be the
Speaker 1: right distance from the star, else it's going to be
Speaker 1: you know, too hot and too radiated to support life
Speaker 1: as we know it, or too cold and too dark
Speaker 1: to support life as we know it. Has to be
Speaker 1: just right. But anyway, these researchers have looked around in
Speaker 1: different sectors of the galaxy over the last decade with
Speaker 1: occasional glimpses of time on radio telescopes is really precious,
Speaker 1: so it's not like these radio telescopes are just scanning
Speaker 1: the galaxy for signs of life. They're doing all sorts
Speaker 1: of important scientific work. So it's only been here and
Speaker 1: there that the researchers have been able to make use
Speaker 1: of radio telescopes for this. But so far they have
Speaker 1: come up with bup kiss. Now does that mean we're
Speaker 1: all alone out here in the Milky Way? Well, not necessarily. Uh.
Speaker 1: The astronomers have to listen in a specific ranges of
Speaker 1: radio frequencies, which means, you know, potentially you could have
Speaker 1: communications and different radio frequency ranges and we wouldn't pick
Speaker 1: it up because we were tuned in it's like being
Speaker 1: tuned into the wrong radio station, Like you're not going
Speaker 1: to hear the song you want because you're on the
Speaker 1: wrong station. Kind of like that. But you know, we're
Speaker 1: talking about massive ranges of radio frequencies, and then there
Speaker 1: are tons of other variables to consider, a lot of
Speaker 1: them were pop arized by the Drake equation as proposed
Speaker 1: by Dr Frank Drake. That equation frames the variables that
Speaker 1: have to line up in order for there to actually
Speaker 1: be a radio communicative species out there apart from our own,
Speaker 1: I mean, and it includes stuff like you have to
Speaker 1: figure out the rate at which stars form within our galaxy,
Speaker 1: the fraction of the stars that are out there that
Speaker 1: have planets orbiting them, Then the average number of orbiting
Speaker 1: planets per star that could potentially support life, Like does
Speaker 1: the average star have that has plants? Have one too
Speaker 1: point five planets that can support life depending upon you know,
Speaker 1: the number of stars that have orbiting plants and such.
Speaker 1: Then you have to figure out the fraction of those
Speaker 1: planets that actually develop life on them. They're not just
Speaker 1: capable of supporting life, but life actually evolved. Then the
Speaker 1: fraction of those planets where the life evolved into at
Speaker 1: least one intelligent species, the fraction of those planets where
Speaker 1: the intelligent life then develops some form of communication that
Speaker 1: we would be able to detect, and then the length
Speaker 1: of time at which such civilizations exist before they're no
Speaker 1: longer able to communicate. So, in other words, like you
Speaker 1: could have an intelligent species evolved to the point of
Speaker 1: being able to communicate with radio waves, but then maybe
Speaker 1: after a certain amount of time, that species wipes itself out.
Speaker 1: It would be easy to imagine, considering the amount of
Speaker 1: conflict that we see here on Earth, it's possible that
Speaker 1: that is something that is not unique to our planet.
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of our our science fiction deals
Speaker 1: with alien races that don't have that kind of internal
Speaker 1: conflict within their own home worlds. We don't know if
Speaker 1: that's a thing. Well, we don't even know if the
Speaker 1: alien races exist, let alone you know how harmonious they
Speaker 1: are within their own species. So we don't really know
Speaker 1: the values of all those variables I just mentioned. By
Speaker 1: the way, the best we can do is make various guesses,
Speaker 1: and those guesses changed dramatically as we learn new information
Speaker 1: about our galaxy. What I think those variables do that
Speaker 1: is useful as it gives us a way to kind
Speaker 1: of conceptualize what we're up against when it comes to
Speaker 1: figuring out if there is anyone to phone home too
Speaker 1: out there. So far, sadly, it seems like the aliens
Speaker 1: are maintaining radio silence. Maybe all of our calls are
Speaker 1: going to voicemail. But you know, again, it doesn't This
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that there is no intelligent alien life within
Speaker 1: our galaxy, just that we have not found a way
Speaker 1: of detecting it if it does exist. Uh. Personally, I
Speaker 1: think it's entirely possible. There could be. I'm sure that
Speaker 1: there has to be life somewhere else. I don't think
Speaker 1: we're that special. I think that that's that. Statistically speaking,
Speaker 1: it's almost certain that there is life on other planets
Speaker 1: within our universe, certainly if not within our galaxy. I mean,
Speaker 1: just the odds seem to suggest that that has to
Speaker 1: be the case. That some of that life may have
Speaker 1: evolved into intelligence I think is also pretty likely. But
Speaker 1: we're also talking about such vast distances here that our
Speaker 1: ability to pick up on it and the time frame
Speaker 1: at which we could pick up on it, Because I
Speaker 1: remember the further out something is the more into the
Speaker 1: past we are looking when we observe that, because it
Speaker 1: takes light years to travel to us, and radio communication
Speaker 1: is traveling effectively, you know the speed of light. You know,
Speaker 1: that means that we're looking back in the past, the
Speaker 1: further out we look, and so it could mean that
Speaker 1: we're looking at a time before the intelligent life started
Speaker 1: to communicate via radio waves. Maybe it's doing it now,
Speaker 1: but we won't know that for thousands of years. So
Speaker 1: there's all these different variables to take into account. So
Speaker 1: do not lose hope, alien lovers. Just know that we
Speaker 1: haven't found the smoking flying saucer yet. That's it for
Speaker 1: this episode of tech Stuff. The news for Tuesday, February
Speaker 1: eighty two. I hope you are all well. If you
Speaker 1: have suggestions for topics I should cover in future episodes
Speaker 1: of tech Stuff, please reach out to me. The best
Speaker 1: way is on Twitter. The handle for the show is
Speaker 1: text Stuff H s W and I'll talk to you again.
Speaker 1: Releasing Text Stuff is an I Heart Radio production. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit the i Heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.