Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Be 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 Yet It's time for the
Speaker 1: tech news for Thursday, July two thousand twenty two. Happy
Speaker 1: Best Steal day, everybody. Let's get to the news. A
Speaker 1: huge story this week, at least in my mind, is
Speaker 1: that famous designer Johnny I've will no longer be designing
Speaker 1: for Apple, all right, so let's give a quick rundown
Speaker 1: for those who are unfamiliar with I've. He started at
Speaker 1: Apple in the early nine nineties. This was an Apple
Speaker 1: that lacked Steve Jobs because jobs have essentially been pushed
Speaker 1: out of the company in and he would not come
Speaker 1: back until I've had studied design all his life. His
Speaker 1: father was a silversmith and his grandfather was an engineer,
Speaker 1: so it kind of ran in the family. And when
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs returned to Apple in ven and subsequently was
Speaker 1: put in charge of the company, he and I've formed
Speaker 1: a type of partnership that would redefine Apple's look, and
Speaker 1: it would bring the company from the verge of bankruptcy
Speaker 1: into an unprecedented era of success. So I've worked on
Speaker 1: tons of iconic Apple products, including the colorful iMac line.
Speaker 1: You might not remember these. These were like the CRT
Speaker 1: monitor Imax, so they look like old televisions, but they
Speaker 1: had these very colorful shells on them, really vibrant ones,
Speaker 1: and everyone just wanted one because they looked cool and friendly.
Speaker 1: I've spent countless hours on design, looking at stuff like
Speaker 1: individual materials and testing out those materials to make sure
Speaker 1: that they would hold what his design called for properly
Speaker 1: and create the aesthetic he was going after. He would
Speaker 1: obsess over the curve of an iPhone or the way
Speaker 1: an Apple watch band would look on someone's wrist. It
Speaker 1: is not an exaggeration to say that a lot of
Speaker 1: Apple's appeal came out of Ive's work and input. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't want to overstate things here either. Obviously, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of other factors with Apple that are important,
Speaker 1: and I've led an entire department of designers who all
Speaker 1: contributed to the success of the company. It wasn't just
Speaker 1: one guy, but during the first decade of the two
Speaker 1: thousand's jobs and I've would be two of the most
Speaker 1: prominent figures at Apple, things, however, would change after Jobs
Speaker 1: passed away in two thousand eleven. Tim Cook, who was
Speaker 1: Steve Job's successor as CEO, has a very different approach
Speaker 1: to leadership than Jobs did. Cook is a financial genius,
Speaker 1: and he's well known for his ability to find new
Speaker 1: ways to generate revenue while also limiting costs. But Cook
Speaker 1: isn't really known for being innovative with products, nor is
Speaker 1: he the salesman that Jobs was. That's just not who
Speaker 1: Cook is. His strengths lie elsewhere, and while Cook would
Speaker 1: lead Apple to unprecedented profits, the press and Apple fans
Speaker 1: began to worry that Apple was kind of losing its mojo,
Speaker 1: that it was falling behind in technical and design innovation.
Speaker 1: I've gradually began to step back from his work. In
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, he actually left Apple and founded a design
Speaker 1: company called Love From, along with a fellow former Apple
Speaker 1: designer named Mark Newsson. But even then, Apple would be
Speaker 1: Love From his chief client, and the two companies signed
Speaker 1: a three year deal rumored to be valued at around
Speaker 1: a hundred million dollars, where Love From would do a
Speaker 1: lot of design work for Apple, in some cases exclusively
Speaker 1: for Apple because the agreement meant that love From was
Speaker 1: not supposed to work for any kind of company that
Speaker 1: competed against Apple in certain categories. Now, reportedly, Apple and
Speaker 1: love From have decided not to extend that three year contract.
Speaker 1: The contract terms her up and they appear to have said,
Speaker 1: you know what, We're gonna walk away. That means that
Speaker 1: for the first time in thirty years, Apple will really
Speaker 1: be moving forward without any of ives involvement in the
Speaker 1: design of its products. So does this mean that Apple's
Speaker 1: aesthetic is going to hold steady or are we actually
Speaker 1: going to see a shift. Will some other genius step
Speaker 1: forward and guide Apple's design in a new direction, or
Speaker 1: will the team with an Apple do its best to
Speaker 1: kind of eight ives preferences. For some folks, the severing
Speaker 1: of this relationship is kind of a warning flag that
Speaker 1: Apple is going to gradually lose its appeal as a
Speaker 1: company that designs sexy and appealing technology that you just
Speaker 1: immediately want to pay cup in your own hands when
Speaker 1: you see it. That's how I think of a lot
Speaker 1: of Apple's products, even though I don't own many of them.
Speaker 1: When I see those presentations, invariably I'm like, man, I
Speaker 1: want to get my hands on that and see what
Speaker 1: it feels like. I think I will have to do
Speaker 1: a full profile episode about Johnny. I've before too long,
Speaker 1: so I'm not gonna go into any further detail here,
Speaker 1: but i will say it is a pretty remarkable end
Speaker 1: of an era. Now let's move on to Twitter. The
Speaker 1: company officially sued Elon Musk in a Delaware court over
Speaker 1: the issue of Musk trying to back out of his
Speaker 1: deal to acquire Twitter. The filing is reportedly sixty two
Speaker 1: pages long, and The Atlantic has a great rundown about
Speaker 1: the lawsuit, including opinions on why Musk's arguments are aren't
Speaker 1: likely to hold up in court. Uh namely that Musk
Speaker 1: is arguing that a flood of bots on Twitter means
Speaker 1: the platform is significantly overvalued, which Musk's team argue is
Speaker 1: enough to allow Musk to back out of the deal.
Speaker 1: The article has the title Elon Musk is a Nightmare client.
Speaker 1: The piece also points out some ironic features in the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: namely that the filing portrays Musk as a capricious and
Speaker 1: petty person and someone that you probably wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: be in charge of your company. But the whole purpose
Speaker 1: of the lawsuit is to force Musk to go through
Speaker 1: with this acquisition deal and to purchase Twitter. So it's
Speaker 1: kind of like saying, this guy's a joke. He should
Speaker 1: not be running a company, and that's why you can't
Speaker 1: take his excuses for why he can't run our company seriously,
Speaker 1: So make him run our company. It's a mad, mad,
Speaker 1: mad mad mad world, y'all. And of course it gets
Speaker 1: better and the filing, Twitter revealed that part of the
Speaker 1: deal it made with Musk was that the company would
Speaker 1: not impede Musk's ability to tweet. He could tweet all
Speaker 1: he liked. However, he was not to disparage Twitter or
Speaker 1: its representatives because that would be in violation of the agreement.
Speaker 1: So it is possible that when Musk tweeted a poop
Speaker 1: emoji at Twitter, that that would eventually come back and
Speaker 1: haunt him and be used against him in a court
Speaker 1: of law. This is the world we live in now,
Speaker 1: where a poop emoji becomes evidence. This is where we
Speaker 1: are at as a society. None of the science fiction
Speaker 1: authors predicted this, So Musk tweeting out negative things about
Speaker 1: Twitter and its representatives violates this agreement, which Twitter then
Speaker 1: argues means that Musk has forfeited his right to terminate
Speaker 1: the agreement, and it gets juicier from there, And at
Speaker 1: least from an outsider's perspective, I would say that it
Speaker 1: looks like Twitter has the upper hand going into this litigation.
Speaker 1: But I am no expert, and Elon Musk has proven
Speaker 1: to be a slippery character on numerous occasions, so I'm
Speaker 1: not confident that he's out of serious trouble or as
Speaker 1: in serious trouble. I honestly can't tell one way or
Speaker 1: the other it is. It's a mystery to me, but
Speaker 1: it's an entertaining one. Now, let's stay Muskie for a
Speaker 1: couple of stories and talk about the SpaceX Rocket booster
Speaker 1: mishap earlier this week. Actually meant to cover this on
Speaker 1: Tuesday's episode because it happened on Monday. Then. It was
Speaker 1: in Texas where a SpaceX Starship Booster rocket burst into
Speaker 1: flames during a ground test firing. Now, this was part
Speaker 1: of a regimen of fire tests with this booster, and
Speaker 1: it's safe to say this particular test was a failure.
Speaker 1: Musk himself acknowledged that the outcome was quote unquote not
Speaker 1: good on Twitter, and must later said it appeared that
Speaker 1: some unburned propellant from the raptor two engines of the Starship.
Speaker 1: The starship has thirty three of these kinds of engines,
Speaker 1: that that was the cause of the fire. As of
Speaker 1: this recording, the teams are still assessing the causes and
Speaker 1: the damage. The exterior structure of the booster appears to
Speaker 1: be in pretty good shape, but I've yet to see
Speaker 1: official word about the condition of the engines themselves now.
Speaker 1: Originally SpaceX hoped to have a test orbital flight of
Speaker 1: the Starship by the end of this month. That seems
Speaker 1: unlikely now, but again, there's been no official word as
Speaker 1: of this recording about when the company expects to conduct
Speaker 1: the test. I think the takeaway here is that rocket
Speaker 1: science is hard. I mean, it's not brain surgery. And
Speaker 1: over at Tesla, the company is saying goodbye to its
Speaker 1: top executive in its AI department, Andre Caparthi, who has
Speaker 1: served as director for Tesla's autopilot vision team, has announced
Speaker 1: he is leaving Tesla. He has been part of the
Speaker 1: company for five years, and this comes as Tesla faces
Speaker 1: scrutiny from the US government regarding the safety of the
Speaker 1: autopilot feature in general, which has been cited as a
Speaker 1: factor in some notable accidents, including some traffic accidents that
Speaker 1: resulted in fatalities. It's also a time when Tesla as
Speaker 1: a whole has been laying off workers. The company recently
Speaker 1: closed at San Mateo office after laying off most of
Speaker 1: the workforce there and transferring the remaining staff to other offices.
Speaker 1: So is this a further indication that Tesla might be
Speaker 1: in a bit of a sticky situation. I just don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not sure what Caparthi's motivations were for
Speaker 1: leaving the company. It could just be that he wants
Speaker 1: a break, or maybe he wants a new challenge in
Speaker 1: his career. I don't want to read too much into it,
Speaker 1: is what I'm saying. All Right, We've got more news
Speaker 1: stories to cover today, but before we get to that,
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. We're back Earlier this week,
Speaker 1: I talked about how a whistle blower leaked more than
Speaker 1: a hundred twenty thousand internal documents from Uber to the press.
Speaker 1: Those documents covered Uber activities between two thousand thirteen and
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen, and mostly documented stuff that we already knew,
Speaker 1: just in much greater detail than we were aware of,
Speaker 1: namely that Uber took to some pretty aggressive tactics in
Speaker 1: order to expand into various markets, including but not limited
Speaker 1: to being pretty loosey goosey with local laws in an
Speaker 1: effort to one established business and to then change the
Speaker 1: laws in Uber's favor. Now I have more news about Uber,
Speaker 1: and it's grim. A group of more than five women
Speaker 1: have brought a lawsuit against Uber, alleging that they had
Speaker 1: been victims of violence from Uber drivers, ranging from sexual
Speaker 1: harassment to kidnapping to rape. The list of accusations is
Speaker 1: absolutely horrifying, and the women claimed that Uber did too
Speaker 1: little to prevent sexual predators from working as drivers for
Speaker 1: the company despite being aware of the issue. That's about
Speaker 1: where we are right now. I'm sure we'll hear a
Speaker 1: lot more about this as the case moves on. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that is a terrible, terrible story, and I'll keep an
Speaker 1: eye on and how it develops. Ring, the smart doorbell
Speaker 1: and security camera company that's owned by Amazon, recently released
Speaker 1: a transparency report in which the company revealed that in
Speaker 1: one it had received three thousand, one hundred forty seven
Speaker 1: legal demands from various law enforcement agencies to hand over
Speaker 1: surveillance footage that had been gathered from the smart doorbell
Speaker 1: cameras and security cameras, so essentially turning customer cameras into
Speaker 1: law enforcements surveillance cameras. Now that number of requests is
Speaker 1: up from around nineteen hundred demands back in, or an
Speaker 1: increase of around sixty and out of those three thousand
Speaker 1: seven demands, more than eighty five percent of them were
Speaker 1: accompanied by a court issued order such as a search warrant. However,
Speaker 1: Ring said that it turned over data as in footage,
Speaker 1: and only around four out of every ten demands when
Speaker 1: you average it all out. So while of these demands
Speaker 1: had a court order attached to them, were the ones
Speaker 1: that Ring actually handed information over. I'm not really sure
Speaker 1: how this all shook out properly, but in addition to that,
Speaker 1: Ring also received two thousand, seven seventy four preservation orders.
Speaker 1: Now that's when a law enforcement agency asks Amazon to
Speaker 1: hold onto data for up to six months while that
Speaker 1: agency attempts to secure a warrant or other court order
Speaker 1: that would be necessary to demand access to the footage. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, this is an agency saying, hey, don't
Speaker 1: delete this customer's data anytime soon, we might need access
Speaker 1: to it. On top of that, Amazon shared footage with
Speaker 1: police at least eleven times without any kind of warrant
Speaker 1: or court order at all, something that the company had
Speaker 1: previously indicated to customers wouldn't happen. The message to consumers
Speaker 1: is that Amazon is not going to hand over footage
Speaker 1: to police unless they have a court order to do so.
Speaker 1: But it turns out that in cases of emergency, essentially
Speaker 1: when someone somewhere determines that there's imminent danger, Amazon can
Speaker 1: share information to police, and that has led some critics
Speaker 1: to protest the practice. They say it sets a precedent
Speaker 1: and it could allow for future mission creep, meaning once
Speaker 1: you establish that there is an exception to the rules,
Speaker 1: it can be easy to have that exception expand over time.
Speaker 1: And since this is a massive invasion of privacy and
Speaker 1: potentially a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution,
Speaker 1: which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, that is a
Speaker 1: significant problem. Yesterday, U S courts convicted former CIA employee
Speaker 1: Joshua Schultz on nine charges relating to leaking classified information.
Speaker 1: Who boy, this story is filled with a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of awful stuff. So first, Schult used to work at
Speaker 1: the CIA as a software engineer. In twenty fifteen, Schulton
Speaker 1: filed a restraining order against one of his co workers
Speaker 1: in the CIA. Filed this restraining order in state court.
Speaker 1: The two people, Schulton this co worker had been in
Speaker 1: what CNN would describe as a feud. They got sent
Speaker 1: to different offices as a result. And then, according to
Speaker 1: prosecutors in this case, Schultz got angry at his employer,
Speaker 1: the CIA, when the agency started looking into bringing in
Speaker 1: a contractor to design a tool that was similar to
Speaker 1: one that Schultz himself was already working on, and that
Speaker 1: this sent Schultz on a vindictive path. So, according to prosecutors,
Speaker 1: Schult then stole several cyber tools belonging to the CIA
Speaker 1: and then sent those tools to Wiki Leaks, the nonprofit
Speaker 1: organization meant to serve as sort of a clearing house
Speaker 1: for whistleblowers. Schult left the CIA in t sixteen. He
Speaker 1: got arrested in t seventeen on charges of possessing child pornography.
Speaker 1: Around that same time, Wiki Leaks began to publish what
Speaker 1: would become known as the Vault seven leaks, the largest
Speaker 1: leak of data in CIA's history. Prosecutors said that those
Speaker 1: leaks originated from two programs that Schult was able to access,
Speaker 1: which implies that the tools Shult handed over to Wiki
Speaker 1: Leaks made the Vault seven leaks possible. While Schultz was
Speaker 1: being investigated and prosecuted for the child pornography charges, he
Speaker 1: then also was charged with leaking this classified information. He
Speaker 1: had an initial trial that ended back in twenty but
Speaker 1: it ended with a mistrial. The government chose to retry
Speaker 1: the case, and that concluded yesterday on July two. That
Speaker 1: one ended with Schult being convicted on those counts of
Speaker 1: leaking classified information. He has yet to be sentenced, but
Speaker 1: this incident has become known, as I said, as the
Speaker 1: largest leak of CIA information in history. All right, let's
Speaker 1: move on to something less grim, at least for anyone
Speaker 1: who doesn't happen to be Google or YouTube. Tech Crunch
Speaker 1: reports that the utes today are spending way more time
Speaker 1: on TikTok than they are on YouTube, and I think
Speaker 1: that comes as a surprise to nobody. VidCon, for example,
Speaker 1: Vidcan is a big conference that focuses on online video
Speaker 1: and traditionally, UH the big attraction of vidcan was the
Speaker 1: attendance of YouTube content creators. Well, this past VidCon it
Speaker 1: was very clear that the focus had switched from YouTube
Speaker 1: to TikTok. Not that there weren't still YouTube creators there
Speaker 1: there were, but that TikTok was largely the main attraction
Speaker 1: at VIDCA this year. So that's a pretty strong example
Speaker 1: of where the trend is going. I'll tech Crunch employeed
Speaker 1: a research team from Q Studio. That's qu s t
Speaker 1: u d i oh. That's a company that makes parental
Speaker 1: control software. And according to Q studios data, gen Z
Speaker 1: and jen Alpha users typically spend somewhere around nine minutes
Speaker 1: on average per day watching content on TikTok and fifty
Speaker 1: six minutes per on average per day watching content on YouTube.
Speaker 1: So there would be about two and a half hours
Speaker 1: of watching stuff online from just those two sources. But
Speaker 1: considering how much television I soaked up when I was
Speaker 1: a kid, I can't get judge about any of this anyway.
Speaker 1: The data shows what I think a lot of folks
Speaker 1: already knew at younger generations are gravitating more towards the
Speaker 1: short form content of TikTok than moving on to what
Speaker 1: you would find on YouTube and It's why a lot
Speaker 1: of platforms, including YouTube itself, have promoted features that present
Speaker 1: content in shorter formats, essentially trying to mimic what TikTok
Speaker 1: is doing on YouTube. It's literally called YouTube shorts, and
Speaker 1: the goal there is to serve as kind of a
Speaker 1: means of discovery so that users will see shorts that
Speaker 1: attract them. They watch the short and then they'll say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm gonna go and find the video
Speaker 1: that this came from, the longer form video and watch
Speaker 1: that too. Meanwhile, according to Business Insider, Google's s VP
Speaker 1: prob Hoker rock Hoven said at a conference, the younger
Speaker 1: audiences are turning to TikTok and Instagram to perform searches
Speaker 1: rather than using Google to do though now that doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily mean that kids are using TikTok to do research
Speaker 1: for homework or anything like that, though maybe that's the case. Instead,
Speaker 1: the example given was more like you're trying to figure
Speaker 1: out where you want to go to grab lunch, and
Speaker 1: that kids these days will look to TikTok and Instagram
Speaker 1: to find out, you know, goods aggestions as opposed to
Speaker 1: using Google Search. So anyway, that's something Google wants to
Speaker 1: address it, wants to develop new tools that will appeal
Speaker 1: to younger users so that they'll use Google for search. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I'm sitting over here thinking I need to start a
Speaker 1: TikTok account where I dress up in various quasi historical
Speaker 1: outfits and do quick lessons on stuff like American history
Speaker 1: and Shakespeare or whatever. I could be the cliffs Notes
Speaker 1: of TikTok, except I'm sure that already exists, probably in
Speaker 1: multiple channels, but maybe I should do it. Anyway, while
Speaker 1: I think about that, let's take another quick break and
Speaker 1: we'll be back with a couple more stories. Okay, we
Speaker 1: got a couple of stories to close out this episode.
Speaker 1: First up, The Register reports that a letter signed by
Speaker 1: executives at some of the biggest tech companies in the world,
Speaker 1: which include Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta, among others,
Speaker 1: encourages state leaders to introduce computer science lessons for students
Speaker 1: in elementary, middle and high school here in the United States.
Speaker 1: So the letter calls for kids to be given the
Speaker 1: opportunity to learn the basics of computer science early on,
Speaker 1: including eventually how to code, with classes becoming more complex
Speaker 1: and in depth at higher grade levels. I think This
Speaker 1: is a great idea. Getting a grounding and computer science
Speaker 1: is practical, and it also means that students will learn
Speaker 1: to put other skills to use. Plus, it will mean
Speaker 1: that students who move on to colleges and universities will
Speaker 1: already have a fundamental understanding before they jump into computer
Speaker 1: science classes. That is critical. Computer science has advanced so
Speaker 1: much in such a relatively short time that it can
Speaker 1: be pretty challenging for students who have little to no
Speaker 1: background in the subject to make progress at the university level. Plus,
Speaker 1: computer science encourages students to learn problem solving skills like
Speaker 1: critical thinking skills, breaking problems down own in a way
Speaker 1: where you can approach a solution that can be applied
Speaker 1: outside the discipline of computer science. It's a really powerful
Speaker 1: tool to have in your arsenal and it's something that
Speaker 1: I wish I had had access to back when I
Speaker 1: was a kid. You know, when I was going to
Speaker 1: high school, the most advanced class we had in our
Speaker 1: computer lab was data entry, right, that was that was
Speaker 1: the peak. That's as far as you could go. I
Speaker 1: actually ended up taking an additional course in the computer
Speaker 1: lab that wasn't even offered officially. I had to get
Speaker 1: special permission to do it rather than take some other elective.
Speaker 1: And it turned out that I end up teaching the
Speaker 1: class at least a portion of the class that were
Speaker 1: on the IBM computers because the teacher of my computer
Speaker 1: lab was more familiar with Apple computers, so that's what
Speaker 1: she focused on. Uh. Turns out I didn't do a
Speaker 1: whole lot other than like again, data entry and word processing.
Speaker 1: So even though I was put in charge, I didn't
Speaker 1: get to really advance my knowledge that much. And I
Speaker 1: consider that real, you know, a real failure of the
Speaker 1: school system, if I'm being honest, because it would have
Speaker 1: been great to have had access to better educational tools
Speaker 1: to get into computer science, even just a little bit,
Speaker 1: because again in my case, it didn't happen at all.
Speaker 1: Who is literally superficial applications of computers, nothing important about
Speaker 1: the computers themselves. So the letter also stresses the importance
Speaker 1: of fostering new generations of computer scientists because it will
Speaker 1: be a critical component for the workplace in general. That's
Speaker 1: clearly been the case for a while. It's also critical
Speaker 1: for U S strategy to have experts and computer science.
Speaker 1: You do not want the country to fall behind in
Speaker 1: that regard. In fact, a lot of people have argued
Speaker 1: that China is already well ahead of the United States
Speaker 1: at this point, and that if we don't start addressing
Speaker 1: this issue, then we will be hopelessly left behind. The
Speaker 1: letter also calls leaders to make certain that such classes
Speaker 1: are available to all students everywhere, including those belonging to
Speaker 1: classically underserved communities. And I really hope that the letter
Speaker 1: helps spur some action across the States. I think it
Speaker 1: would be incredibly helpful if that did happen. Finally, Nintendo
Speaker 1: has a new acquisition. The company has purchased a CG
Speaker 1: production company called Dynamo Pictures, which Nintendo plans to rebrand
Speaker 1: as Nintendo Pictures. The subsidiary will be tasked with creating
Speaker 1: quote visual content utilizing Nintendo I p end quote. According
Speaker 1: to a Nintendo press release, that visual content is likely
Speaker 1: going to include work that will actually appear in video
Speaker 1: games themselves. Dynamo Pictures has previously done motion capture work
Speaker 1: on several large computer game and and video game titles
Speaker 1: like Death Stranding is one of them, so a lot
Speaker 1: of that work may be to reduced content that's actually
Speaker 1: going to go into video games. However, I expect we'll
Speaker 1: also see Nintendo Pictures work on stuff that's meant to
Speaker 1: be on television or streaming or film. The acquisition is
Speaker 1: not yet complete. It's still in the process. Nintendo said
Speaker 1: in its released to two shareholders that it expects the
Speaker 1: deal to close on October three of this year. But Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm really curious to see what comes out of this.
Speaker 1: It would be interesting to see if Nintendo starts to
Speaker 1: generate more UH shows and films and stuff that leverage
Speaker 1: the I P. We know there's the Super Mario Brothers
Speaker 1: movie coming out soon, which you know, the biggest story
Speaker 1: about that is how everyone reacts to Chris Pratt doing
Speaker 1: the voice for Mario. A lot of folks were not
Speaker 1: super happy to hear that, although I haven't heard any
Speaker 1: specific like recordings from any of the sessions, so I
Speaker 1: don't know what kind of voice he's doing for the character,
Speaker 1: or if he's doing a voice for the character, if
Speaker 1: he's just being Chris Pratt, don't know, haven't paid attention,
Speaker 1: haven't checked in. But if he is just being Chris Pratt,
Speaker 1: I imagine that's going to upset a lot of folks
Speaker 1: who are really hoping for the Itsamei Mario type character. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I can't wait to find out more about Nintendo pictures
Speaker 1: and what they'll be making in the future, so I
Speaker 1: will be keeping an eye on that, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: we'll talk about in future episodes of this show. And
Speaker 1: with that, we are done with the news for Thursday,
Speaker 1: July two thousand twenty two. If you have suggestions for
Speaker 1: topics I should cover in future episodes of Tech Stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, like if you really want to hear that
Speaker 1: that full profile on Johnny I, for example, although I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure I'm gonna do that anyway, please reach out
Speaker 1: to me. There are a couple of ways you can
Speaker 1: do that. One is to download the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: which is free to use. You can navigate over to
Speaker 1: the tech Stuff section of the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: and on that section you're gonna see a little microphone icon.
Speaker 1: If you click on that, you can leave a voice
Speaker 1: message up to thirty seconds in length. If you like,
Speaker 1: you can let me know if I can use the
Speaker 1: audio in a future episode, um, because I am all
Speaker 1: about opt in, or if you prefer not to do
Speaker 1: that and I get it you maybe you're like listen
Speaker 1: ug Onto apps already, or I don't really want to
Speaker 1: talk on on your little microphone feature I totally understand.
Speaker 1: Another way to reach out to me is on Twitter.
Speaker 1: The handle for the show is tech Stuff H s
Speaker 1: W and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech
Speaker 1: Stuff is an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts
Speaker 1: from My Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.