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. It's time for the
Speaker 1: tech news for Thursday, March twenty four, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: Let's get to it. Following up on a story I
Speaker 1: covered on Tuesday, cybersecurity researchers believe they have identified the
Speaker 1: source of the hacking attacks on Octa and other companies.
Speaker 1: Hacking group called LAPSUS, which is spelled l A P
Speaker 1: S U S followed by a dollar sign, had claimed
Speaker 1: responsibility for those attacks, stating that the group's goal was
Speaker 1: really nothing more than just financial gain, as it infiltrated
Speaker 1: not just Octa and as a reminder, that's a company
Speaker 1: that provides authentication services to other companies, but also on
Speaker 1: other big names like Microsoft and The security researchers believe
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old boy in England is perhaps the
Speaker 1: ringleader of LAPSUS. Another person identified by the group is
Speaker 1: a teenager in Brazil, and helping out the researchers work
Speaker 1: were some rival hackers who effectively doxed this teenager and
Speaker 1: shared information about him and his family online. So it's
Speaker 1: a pretty brutal world out there in the the hacker community.
Speaker 1: As to what will happen next, that is likely a
Speaker 1: matter for the authorities. Meanwhile, I suspect researchers will seek
Speaker 1: out more evidence that ties this particular teenager and his
Speaker 1: accomplices to those attacks. And it sounds to me like
Speaker 1: the group was extremely skilled and they were very very
Speaker 1: fast at what they did, but perhaps they were not
Speaker 1: the best at, you know, avoiding consequences for their actions.
Speaker 1: It's possible that one of the reasons they commit of
Speaker 1: these attacks was for notoriety within the hacker community. I mean,
Speaker 1: there is kind of that part of the community aspect
Speaker 1: as well. Uh, And it might turn out that the
Speaker 1: price of that notoriety is pretty darn steep once the
Speaker 1: authorities get involved. But we'll have to see how this unfolds.
Speaker 1: Russia continues to clamp down on information as military forces
Speaker 1: continued to push into Ukraine. The latest service to join
Speaker 1: the list of suspended platforms is Google News. Russia shut
Speaker 1: off access to Google News in Russia and was saying
Speaker 1: that Google News was spreading quote unreliable information end quote.
Speaker 1: Now keep in mind that Russia continues to contextualize the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian invasion as a special military operation, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: certainly whitewashing what is going on. Meanwhile, thousands of people
Speaker 1: have died, including perhaps more than ten thousand Russian soldiers
Speaker 1: according to some estimations. I've seen estimations as high as
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand Russian soldiers, and I imagine that's going to
Speaker 1: be difficult for Russian officials to explain under the label
Speaker 1: special military operation. It's not like they can just cover
Speaker 1: up fifteen thousand deaths, you know, across the entire nation.
Speaker 1: I'm actually surprised that Russia has hadn't already shut down
Speaker 1: Google News. I'm surprised it took as long as it
Speaker 1: did because the control of information is one of the
Speaker 1: key tools in the Russian government's toolbox, as is often
Speaker 1: the case with authoritarian regimes. SpaceX has increased the cost
Speaker 1: of being a starlink customer. Now, if you're not familiar
Speaker 1: with that service, Starlink is a satellite based Internet service
Speaker 1: provider or i s p. SO Customers purchase a satellite antenna,
Speaker 1: a dish in other words, that can connect to and
Speaker 1: track small satellites that are in low Earth orbit. The
Speaker 1: plan is to launch tens of thousands of satellites to
Speaker 1: kind of provide this blanket coverage so that no matter
Speaker 1: what time of day it is, you've got a satellite
Speaker 1: that's in view. So the antenna will actually switch from
Speaker 1: one satellite to another as the satellites move out of
Speaker 1: sight because of course they're orbiting the Earth faster than
Speaker 1: the Earth rotates, so they're kind of zooming overhead. The
Speaker 1: dish has to switch from one to another as it
Speaker 1: passes across the horizon really out of sight in general,
Speaker 1: because a tree line will do it too. And UM
Speaker 1: Startling is in a limited rollout right now. When it
Speaker 1: first premiered, the cost to purchase the starter kit was
Speaker 1: four dollars and the monthly service fee to get the
Speaker 1: internet service was nine bucks a month. But now those
Speaker 1: prices have gone up to five hundred dollars for the
Speaker 1: starter kit and one dred ten dollars per month for service.
Speaker 1: For those customers who have already put down a deposit
Speaker 1: but have not yet received a kit, now they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to pay a little bit more, up to nine
Speaker 1: dollars total before they will get their satellite antenna. Now
Speaker 1: that's probably gonna frustrate folks who had placed in order,
Speaker 1: put down a deposit and we're waiting for their their
Speaker 1: kit and felt that they had already paid the asking price. However,
Speaker 1: I guess one saving grace is that they're still kind
Speaker 1: of getting a fifty dollar discount off a brand new
Speaker 1: Starlink package if you if you hadn't already put down
Speaker 1: a deposit. And apparently this is not going to impact
Speaker 1: customers who really dug deep in their pockets to purchase
Speaker 1: Starlink Premium, which I didn't even realize was a thing
Speaker 1: until today. Anyway. So one of the drawbacks of satellite
Speaker 1: internet is that you're typically capped at a fairly conservative bandwidth,
Speaker 1: and there's also an issue with latency because well, you know,
Speaker 1: even though radio signals travel at the speed of light,
Speaker 1: there's still a good bit of distance between an earthbound
Speaker 1: antenna that's on your property and a satellite that's in
Speaker 1: orbit overhead. So the basic service for Starlink advertises download
Speaker 1: speeds of fifty to two fifty megabits for second. That's
Speaker 1: actually really darn impressive for satellite um and it has
Speaker 1: a latency of between twenty to forty milliseconds. At least
Speaker 1: that's the advertised latency. The premium service well has the
Speaker 1: same latency because you know, you can't actually make light
Speaker 1: go any faster than it already goes, so there's no
Speaker 1: real way to cut down on that. But the bandwidth
Speaker 1: is advertised as a hundred fifty two up to five
Speaker 1: hundred megabits per second, which is really impressive. However, to
Speaker 1: get those speeds, you really got to shell out the
Speaker 1: big bucks. And I'm talking two thousand five dollars for
Speaker 1: the kit and then the monthly service fee would be
Speaker 1: five hundred dollars a month. Yells in, I thought my
Speaker 1: I s P bill was big. Now, to be fair,
Speaker 1: I think that the premium services really marketed more toward
Speaker 1: businesses rather than your average household. I mean, I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are gonna be some, you know, folks who have
Speaker 1: lots of cash and happen to have a mansion out
Speaker 1: in the middle of nowhere where this is going to
Speaker 1: be their preferred method, But most of us wouldn't probably
Speaker 1: sign on to the premium service. So you might wonder
Speaker 1: why did Starlink increase the prices for the basic service
Speaker 1: and it seems to be that the main culprit here
Speaker 1: is inflation, which is obviously hitting a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: right now. Also, SpaceX takes a loss on those antenna
Speaker 1: it sells. So yeah, five hundred bucks is a lot
Speaker 1: of money. Uh, six d bucks is a lot of money.
Speaker 1: But that's that's still less than what it costs SpaceX
Speaker 1: to build the things. According to the Verge, SpaceX spends
Speaker 1: about to build a single antenna, and originally when they
Speaker 1: first started, that was closer to three thousand dollars. So
Speaker 1: SpaceX has been selling these antenna as a loss leader.
Speaker 1: They make money in the long run through the monthly
Speaker 1: service fees. So while this new price is steep, it's
Speaker 1: still less than half of what it costs SpaceX to
Speaker 1: actually make the kits. So there's that. The Etisphere Institute,
Speaker 1: which sounds a bit to me like a sinister organization
Speaker 1: in the Fallout video game Universe, released a report naming
Speaker 1: the most ethical companies in various industries, and over in
Speaker 1: tech we had a couple of really big names make
Speaker 1: that list, including Microsoft and Apple. Those are names that
Speaker 1: I found surprising to appear on a list of most
Speaker 1: ethical companies for reasons, but then I think the Atmosphere
Speaker 1: Institute is really taking a focused, or if you prefer,
Speaker 1: narrow view when it comes to what it means to
Speaker 1: be ethical. Certainly, the commitment to ethical sourcing of materials
Speaker 1: is critically important around the world. You know, I've talked
Speaker 1: before about how at various points in the supply chain
Speaker 1: from the point of raw material all the way to
Speaker 1: a finished product, there are some dark spots. Spots that
Speaker 1: can include forced human labor, child labor, human trafficking, and
Speaker 1: more like really dark stuff. So companies that actually go
Speaker 1: the extra mile to seek verification that the supply chain
Speaker 1: they rely upon doesn't in turn rely upon human rights
Speaker 1: violations is a good thing and it should be acknowledged.
Speaker 1: Though I would also say that we should probably consider
Speaker 1: that the bare minimum right. I mean, it seems kind
Speaker 1: of crass to say congratulations on not violating human rights
Speaker 1: to bring us this gadget that. I mean, yeah, you
Speaker 1: shouldn't get an award for not causing human misery. But
Speaker 1: I digress. I do think that from certain points of view,
Speaker 1: as ob one would say, Apple and Microsoft and some
Speaker 1: of the other companies named have taken great strides to
Speaker 1: make certain their processes are ethical, but I happen to
Speaker 1: view ethics in a more broad context. Uh. These are
Speaker 1: also companies that have reputations for stuff like clamping down
Speaker 1: on employees, whether it's discouraging organization or forcing folks to
Speaker 1: sign agreements that prevent them from going public or seeking
Speaker 1: external legal help after they encounter violations of workplace policies,
Speaker 1: or or they they end up being the target of
Speaker 1: illegal activities and that kind of thing. Now, maybe I'm
Speaker 1: looking at this from too wide a perspective, but I
Speaker 1: think it's actually important for us to keep those shortcomings
Speaker 1: in mind, because otherwise we invite a dangerous situation where
Speaker 1: we let ourselves think of these companies as inherently ethical,
Speaker 1: and then we will overlook other transgressions we I think
Speaker 1: it's perfectly legitimate to say, yes, here is where they
Speaker 1: are doing the right thing, and still also say and
Speaker 1: here is where they need to change. I think we
Speaker 1: can have room for both of those. Okay, we've got
Speaker 1: some more news stories to cover, but before we get
Speaker 1: to those, let's take a quick break. One ongoing story
Speaker 1: that we've been covering relates to companies like Apple and
Speaker 1: Google being pressured to allow third party payment systems within
Speaker 1: apps running on iOS and Android respectively, and now we
Speaker 1: have word that Google is making an allowance for Spotify.
Speaker 1: Users will have the option to choose to pay for
Speaker 1: purchases within Spotify using either Google Pay billing or they
Speaker 1: can opt for Spotify's own billing method. This is a
Speaker 1: pretty big deal because we have seen Google and Apple
Speaker 1: long dependent upon the fact that these companies have had
Speaker 1: to take a chunk out of every single in app transaction,
Speaker 1: usually between fifteen and thirty per pop and hand it
Speaker 1: over to Google or Apple, and because there were no
Speaker 1: other payment options available, that meant the developers had no
Speaker 1: choice but to accept that a fairly significant of change
Speaker 1: per transaction was going to go to these companies. Now
Speaker 1: we're seeing pushback around the world as various courts and
Speaker 1: regulatory bodies argue that this practice is inherently anti competitive. Uh.
Speaker 1: In fact, just on this past Tuesday episode, I talked
Speaker 1: about how Apple was fined for the ninth week in
Speaker 1: a row for doing this in the Netherlands with dating apps,
Speaker 1: and whether this new deal with Spotify will market change
Speaker 1: that will roll out to other apps on the Android platform.
Speaker 1: That's too early to say, but at least it is encouraging.
Speaker 1: So I should also add it's not clear yet if
Speaker 1: Google is still taking some cut of each transaction. That
Speaker 1: is a possibility. Again with the Apple story, we heard
Speaker 1: that one of its concessions to the Dutch regulators was
Speaker 1: to offer up a third party payment option for dating apps,
Speaker 1: in which Apple would still take a hefty twenty seven cut. Now,
Speaker 1: considering that payment processing services always take a cut, I
Speaker 1: mean that's how they make money. So every transaction the
Speaker 1: these the processing service that actually processes the transaction, they
Speaker 1: get a percentage of that. It's the same with credit
Speaker 1: card companies. Well, with a twenty cut on top of
Speaker 1: whatever the third party is charging, it would mean that
Speaker 1: no matter what third party you were going with, chances
Speaker 1: are that option was going to be more expensive than
Speaker 1: just sticking in house with Apple. Needless to say, the
Speaker 1: Dutch regulators rejected this concession and called it out for
Speaker 1: what it is, that Apple was rigging the game in
Speaker 1: its own favor. Also, remember Apple was one of those
Speaker 1: ethical companies we were talking about a minute ago. And
Speaker 1: other Google related news, the company is preparing to sunset
Speaker 1: the Google Play Movies and TV store section in May. Alright,
Speaker 1: so Google Play has been Google's kind of all stop
Speaker 1: shop for online content and apps on Google ecosystems, namely
Speaker 1: stuff like Android devices and Google Connected television services. So
Speaker 1: you would go to Google Play to buy all sorts
Speaker 1: of stuff like e books or games or apps, music, television,
Speaker 1: and film. But then Google started to migrate some stuff
Speaker 1: out of Google Play. For example, Google Play Music shut
Speaker 1: down and shifted to YouTube Music. And it looks like
Speaker 1: something similar is happening with Google Play TV and movies,
Speaker 1: where users will be prompted to go to separate apps
Speaker 1: such as YouTube or Google Tv. And perhaps this is
Speaker 1: an effort to streamline stuff so that people who are
Speaker 1: interested in one kind of content but not necessarily other
Speaker 1: kinds of content can more easily find what they're looking for.
Speaker 1: And I kind of get that, you know, navigating through
Speaker 1: Google Play can be a bit clunky. Still, this also
Speaker 1: feels like another example of Google introducing a feature or
Speaker 1: a product and then a couple of years later just
Speaker 1: pulling the plug on it. Instagram has introduced a feature
Speaker 1: that will let users view in chronological order, which I
Speaker 1: mean has been long overdue. Also, they can filter their
Speaker 1: feeds so that they're just looking at you know, uh,
Speaker 1: entries that are from their favorites, like the the accounts
Speaker 1: they are most interested in, But in neither case will
Speaker 1: users be able to set that as their default view
Speaker 1: of Instagram's feed, So by default, users will still be
Speaker 1: presented with the jumbled up feed that's arranged not by
Speaker 1: any kind of timeliness, but by the whims of the
Speaker 1: feeds algorithm. Now I don't personally use Instagram or Facebook anymore,
Speaker 1: but back when I did, one of the things I
Speaker 1: consistently found really infuriating was the lack of ability to
Speaker 1: just view stuff in reverse chronological order. I wanted to
Speaker 1: see the most recent stuff posted by my friends and
Speaker 1: the folks that I followed, and I hated the way
Speaker 1: content would actually appear in both of those products out
Speaker 1: of any kind of order. That made sense to me,
Speaker 1: because I would find myself responding to something that was
Speaker 1: actually several days old in some cases, and in off
Speaker 1: often in those cases, it would turn out that whatever
Speaker 1: it was was now irrelevant, like we had all moved on.
Speaker 1: I just didn't know about it because the way the
Speaker 1: feed was sending it to me, I was looking at
Speaker 1: something that was already out of date. And anyway, for
Speaker 1: those who still use Instagram. I'm glad that this is
Speaker 1: now an option if that's something that really would be
Speaker 1: valuable to you. I think it's still pretty irritating that
Speaker 1: you can't just set it and forget it. You will
Speaker 1: have to choose that view of your feed each time
Speaker 1: you open the app, if that's how you want to
Speaker 1: see it. I guess we should be thankful for any improvements,
Speaker 1: even if they're small ones. Also, we should keep in
Speaker 1: mind that part of the motivation for making this change
Speaker 1: is that meta Instagram's parent company has been under fire
Speaker 1: for relying on algorithms that promote certain materials to users
Speaker 1: in an effort to drive engagement, and that material frequently
Speaker 1: falls into dangerous categories that can become echo chambers that
Speaker 1: end up promoting extremist views, or it can end up
Speaker 1: serving up content that can harm someone's mental health. So
Speaker 1: you could make a case that the reason Meta slash
Speaker 1: Instagram did this was really more about trying to take
Speaker 1: some of that heat off, rather than giving users what
Speaker 1: they've been asking for for ages. But I guess you
Speaker 1: don't look a gift horse in the Instagram feed, you
Speaker 1: just follow it. The United Nations has launched an ambitious
Speaker 1: project that, if successful, would connect every person to early
Speaker 1: weather warning systems. And by every person, I mean every
Speaker 1: person on the planet. According to the u N Secretary General,
Speaker 1: six of people in Africa lack an early warning weather system.
Speaker 1: If we look at this from a global perspective, one
Speaker 1: third of all humanity lacks access to early warning weather systems,
Speaker 1: and that is sobering, particularly when you consider due to
Speaker 1: climate change, there is strong evidence to suggest that we're
Speaker 1: going to see more and more severe weather events across
Speaker 1: the world on the increase over the following years, and
Speaker 1: early warning can mean the difference between life and death.
Speaker 1: As of how this is going to actually progress, that's
Speaker 1: still being worked out. The u N World Meteorological Organization
Speaker 1: has the ball now, and we'll need to put together
Speaker 1: a plan that will achieve this goal within the five
Speaker 1: year time frame. The w MO is expected to share
Speaker 1: an action plan at the UN Climate Conference in November. Okay,
Speaker 1: we've got a couple more stories to go before we
Speaker 1: get to those. Let's take another quick break al right. So,
Speaker 1: one other ongoing huge story in tech has been how
Speaker 1: the world has tried to respond to the ongoing semiconductor shortage,
Speaker 1: which has happened for numerous reasons, the big one being
Speaker 1: the pandemic and and Intel has been working on establishing
Speaker 1: semiconductor fabrication facilities here in the United States, which would
Speaker 1: help mitigate the necessity to depend upon Taiwan as the
Speaker 1: main source for semiconductor manufacturing. This is important not just
Speaker 1: because of the current supply chain issues, but because Taiwan
Speaker 1: has a let's call it an uneasy political relationship with China.
Speaker 1: That's being very delicate about things. There's a legitimate concern
Speaker 1: that one day mainland China forces could attempt to invade
Speaker 1: Taiwan or at the very least disrupt global supply chains. Now,
Speaker 1: setting aside the numerous other reasons why a Chinese invasion
Speaker 1: would be a bad thing, because there are lots of them,
Speaker 1: we're just going to focus on the semiconductor side for this.
Speaker 1: That's prompted Intel to invest in building facilities elsewhere, like
Speaker 1: here in the United States. But doing that is really expensive,
Speaker 1: and doing that at the cost of profit. It's can
Speaker 1: sometimes cheese off stakeholders. You know, people who own shares
Speaker 1: in your company. They expect a return on their investment.
Speaker 1: That in turn has in a prompted Intel CEO Pat
Speaker 1: Gelsinger to urge US Congress to grant subsidies to the
Speaker 1: U S semiconductor industry in order to help offset those costs. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, Intel is hoping that Congress will allot
Speaker 1: some taxpayer dollars to help foot the bill for building
Speaker 1: out Intel facilities here in America, not just Intel, other
Speaker 1: semiconductor facilities too. And while both the House and Senate
Speaker 1: in Congress are considering this, and each have their own
Speaker 1: proposals about this, but they have to work out the
Speaker 1: differences between the two. That process has been a pretty
Speaker 1: slow one, and there's been some understandable resistance and concern
Speaker 1: about using taxpayer money to subsidize a company like Intel.
Speaker 1: Intel has a market cap of two four point five
Speaker 1: one billion dollars as of today's recording. Now that that
Speaker 1: number that represents the total dollar value of Intel's shares,
Speaker 1: so it's nearly two hundred five billion dollars, So you
Speaker 1: could argue Intel is worth two hundred five billion dollars. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, that is not indicative of how much cash
Speaker 1: Intel has on hand. That's a different thing. That's closer
Speaker 1: to probably around twenty four billion dollars at least as
Speaker 1: of last year, and you can see how telling taxpayers.
Speaker 1: Imagine that you're a politician and you're voting to pass
Speaker 1: legislation that would subsidize semiconductor facilities in the United States,
Speaker 1: and then you're asked by your constituents, Hey, um, why
Speaker 1: did you use my tax dollars to help this two
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollar company build factories. That's a hard sell, right, Like,
Speaker 1: that's a hard question to answer, even if there are
Speaker 1: legitimate reasons for that. Politically, you could see how this
Speaker 1: would be a very difficult thing to do and end.
Speaker 1: You know, Intel is a publicly traded company. That means
Speaker 1: it does have a responsibility to its shareholders. So Intel,
Speaker 1: you know, can't just spend money that it has and
Speaker 1: maybe some money it doesn't have, in an effort to
Speaker 1: build this stuff out. It's not a private company. It
Speaker 1: can't just shoulder that burden and hope to get out.
Speaker 1: On the other side, it has shareholders to answer to,
Speaker 1: So it is more complicated than just saying it's a
Speaker 1: two billion dollar company, why are we giving it money
Speaker 1: or why are we giving it enormous tax breaks so
Speaker 1: it can build out these facilities. Meanwhile, we do have
Speaker 1: to address the very real problem of the semiconductor shortage.
Speaker 1: So yes, very complex issue here. Um. I definitely get
Speaker 1: a little grouchy at the thought of taxpayer money helping
Speaker 1: out an enormous company like Intel, but I also admit
Speaker 1: that the issue is far more complicated than that. So
Speaker 1: I think the subsidy is going to be a tough
Speaker 1: pill should Congress actually agree upon it and pass it.
Speaker 1: But it might be that it's a necessity in order
Speaker 1: to make this come to pass. Without it, we're probably
Speaker 1: going to get facilities that have less capability than what
Speaker 1: Intel wants to see. And it may be that whatever
Speaker 1: facilities we get aren't really a solution to the issues
Speaker 1: that we are encountering in the industry. So yeah, um,
Speaker 1: I wish I could say that this was a very
Speaker 1: simple matter where it's a binary thing, but it, as
Speaker 1: most things in life, it's actually way more complicated than that.
Speaker 1: Now here are a couple of other quick news bits
Speaker 1: to end out this episode. First, Rolls Royce, the aerospace company,
Speaker 1: not the motor car company, because those are two different entities. Uh.
Speaker 1: Rolls Royce has broken records with its electric plane. It
Speaker 1: is named the Spirit of Innovation, which is a cool
Speaker 1: name for a plane, and as electric plane implies, it
Speaker 1: has an electric motor, it does not have a combustion
Speaker 1: engine or jet engine. And it broke a couple of
Speaker 1: speed records. One was for top speed over three kilometers,
Speaker 1: which the Spirit of Innovation set at five fifty five
Speaker 1: point nine kilometers per hour. For those of us in
Speaker 1: the US, that's about three miles per hour. And it
Speaker 1: also set a record for fast speed over fifteen kilometers
Speaker 1: that was five thirty two point one kilometers per hour,
Speaker 1: or around three per hour. That's pretty darn cool. I
Speaker 1: mean that's still that's much slower than what you see
Speaker 1: with like commercial jets, for example, but still really neat
Speaker 1: that a purely electric flying machine was able to hit
Speaker 1: those speeds over those distances. Now, of course, right now
Speaker 1: we're still talking about demonstrating capabilities here, right we're talking
Speaker 1: about like the proof of concept stage really or maybe
Speaker 1: one step beyond that. But it's probably gonna be ay
Speaker 1: before we see those capabilities built into more practical applications.
Speaker 1: But you know, you gotta crawl before you walk, or
Speaker 1: I guess you gotta fly before you commercially fly. Perhaps finally,
Speaker 1: we have a sad story. Stephen Wilhei, who created the
Speaker 1: g i F file format, recently passed away due to COVID.
Speaker 1: The format allowed a way to create high resolution graphics
Speaker 1: and not require huge file sizes. Today we think of
Speaker 1: g i F files as being animated image files. That
Speaker 1: was not always the case. It was an alternative to
Speaker 1: some other image file formats like JPEG. Really really important contribution,
Speaker 1: especially in the early days of the Internet, where you know,
Speaker 1: we were relying on things like dial up Internet, so
Speaker 1: fast transmission speeds. Small files like these were really important things.
Speaker 1: So in honor of his memory, I am going to
Speaker 1: pronounce the file format the way he said you were
Speaker 1: supposed to Jeff, the Jeff file format. I will likely
Speaker 1: not pronounce this this way ever again, but you know,
Speaker 1: I definitely respect his contributions to technology in general and
Speaker 1: the JEFF format in particular. Alright, that wraps up the
Speaker 1: news for Thursday, March two thousand twenty two. I hope
Speaker 1: you are all well. If you have any suggestions for
Speaker 1: topics I should cover on future episodes of tech Stuff,
Speaker 1: please reach out to me. The best way to do
Speaker 1: that is over on Twitter. The handle for the show
Speaker 1: is tech Stuff H. S W. And I'll talk to
Speaker 1: you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an I heart
Speaker 1: Radio production. For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit
Speaker 1: the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to your favorite shows. Eight