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 a Thursday, December eight, two thousand twenty two. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: Apple announced it will offer full encryption for user data
Speaker 1: stored in iCloud, So that includes stuff like chat histories
Speaker 1: and photos and that kind of thing. It's something that
Speaker 1: Apple users and privacy organizations have wanted for a long time,
Speaker 1: particularly in the wake of things like you know, hackers
Speaker 1: getting access to people's photos and I Cloud. Having that
Speaker 1: stuff encrypted would make a huge difference. So the encryption
Speaker 1: means that if someone else were to gain access to
Speaker 1: the data, but they don't have access to the ivan
Speaker 1: key used to decrypt the data, all they will end
Speaker 1: up with is gibberish. And that, of course means we
Speaker 1: need to talk about the US Federal Bureau of Investigation
Speaker 1: a k. The f b I, because boy howdy, they
Speaker 1: do not like Apple's move here. The FBI would much
Speaker 1: prefer that this data remain unencrypted. That way, should the
Speaker 1: FBI need to access information in an investigation, they could
Speaker 1: do so without having the whole sticky situation of this
Speaker 1: data not actually meaning anything to them because it would
Speaker 1: be all jumbled up. So the FBI argues that the
Speaker 1: encrypted data represents a danger to Americans that without access
Speaker 1: to that data, the FBI is going to have a
Speaker 1: harder time detecting, investigating, or preventing crimes that could otherwise
Speaker 1: harm Americans. And there's some truth to that, but this
Speaker 1: also ignores the fact that people want their information to
Speaker 1: be safe from prying eyes. So let me give you
Speaker 1: a really just simple, honest example. Let's say that you
Speaker 1: are unhappy with your job, and so you start sending
Speaker 1: out feelers to your network of contacts to see if
Speaker 1: perhaps there are any other opportunities elsewhere that you would
Speaker 1: like to pursue. Well, you would want those communications to
Speaker 1: be encrypted so that if your current employer were to
Speaker 1: somehow come across those transmissions, you wouldn't immediately be called
Speaker 1: out on it then potentially face retribution anyway, The FBI
Speaker 1: has long urged companies that use encryption that they should
Speaker 1: incorporate a system whereby the FBI could decrypt information stored
Speaker 1: in those systems. This is the so called back door strategy,
Speaker 1: giving the FBI a back door into the ecosystem. And
Speaker 1: I know I have said this a billion times, but
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say it again. Intentionally putting in a back
Speaker 1: door is never a good idea full stop never. Now
Speaker 1: why is that? Well, think of it this way. Hackers
Speaker 1: are constantly probing systems to find vulnerabilities that they can exploit.
Speaker 1: So they're looking for ways to gain purchase in a
Speaker 1: system and to intrude into that system, and that includes
Speaker 1: finding ways to decrypt data. So if you build in
Speaker 1: that capability, presumably with the intent to only allow the
Speaker 1: FBI to use it, it represents an enormous target for
Speaker 1: hackers because when you know there's a back door, there's
Speaker 1: no reason to just keep slamming away at the front door. Right,
Speaker 1: So putting in backdoor access is equivalent to including a
Speaker 1: security vulnerability on purpose. It's dumb. Plus, we know that
Speaker 1: people in positions of power can abuse that power. Now,
Speaker 1: not everyone does. I'm sure there's no shortage of decent
Speaker 1: people in organizations who would never do such a thing,
Speaker 1: but we have seen plenty of cases where people in
Speaker 1: positions of power have abused things like access to data
Speaker 1: see also the n s A. And you can never
Speaker 1: be certain that everyone in the FBI who would have
Speaker 1: access to a tool like backdoor decryption in the y
Speaker 1: cloud wouldn't abuse that access. So, in short, I think
Speaker 1: Apple is doing the right thing because the company so
Speaker 1: far has resisted all calls to weaken its systems. Now
Speaker 1: over at the Pentagon, a hefty nine billion dollar contract
Speaker 1: that's billion with a B has gone out to several
Speaker 1: tech companies to build out a cloud computing network for
Speaker 1: the Pentagon's use. And this comes at the end of
Speaker 1: a really long and messy situation in which various companies
Speaker 1: had secured parts of a contract, but then there were
Speaker 1: accusations that flared up that there was some hanky panky
Speaker 1: going on in the contract phase, meaning that you know,
Speaker 1: folks suspected there was collusion between Pentagon officials and certain
Speaker 1: companies as opposed to the Pentagon selecting the best legitimate proposal.
Speaker 1: That appears to all be settled now, with Microsoft, Amazon, Google,
Speaker 1: and Oracle all getting a slice of that nine billion
Speaker 1: dollar pie. The purpose of this new cloud infrastructure will
Speaker 1: be to hold information of varying degrees of secrecy, although
Speaker 1: everything from like unclassified information up to top secret stuff,
Speaker 1: and also to allow the rapid dissemination of information to
Speaker 1: any parties that need it within like the Department of Defense,
Speaker 1: such as troops are stationed in distant countries. As such,
Speaker 1: the system will need to have robust security to put
Speaker 1: it lightly, to prevent you know, spies from being able
Speaker 1: to see critical communications and intelligence. This is a very
Speaker 1: tall order considering the challenges of making anything digitally bullet proof.
Speaker 1: So interesting that this is finally moving forward and that
Speaker 1: it's going to be a confederation of different big tech
Speaker 1: companies that will be involved in it. Lawmakers and regulators
Speaker 1: and the EU continue to be a thorn in the
Speaker 1: side of big tech. The Court of Justice of the
Speaker 1: European Union has ruled that Google is legally obligated to
Speaker 1: remove search results if users can prove that the search
Speaker 1: results lead to inaccurate data. Now, I imagine that's going
Speaker 1: to be an enormous problem moving forward, because anyone who
Speaker 1: objects to any search result could presumably challenge it as
Speaker 1: for proving results to be inaccurate. I think that's also
Speaker 1: going to be a bit odd because typically the burden
Speaker 1: of proof is on whatever party is claiming accuracy, like,
Speaker 1: you know, the whole you can't prove a negative kind
Speaker 1: of thing. But in this ruling, the court is saying,
Speaker 1: if someone requests the removal of a search result, that
Speaker 1: someone must also prove that quote much information is manifestly
Speaker 1: inaccurate end quote. So this does sound like the burden
Speaker 1: is on the claimant. Now, in a way, I guess
Speaker 1: that makes sense, because really Google is just indexing and
Speaker 1: displaying search results right. In most cases, Google is not
Speaker 1: the party that's responsible for the generation of the information.
Speaker 1: It's just serving up links. Though things do get a
Speaker 1: little tricky when you start talking about things like ads
Speaker 1: that appear in search results. The court is trying to
Speaker 1: find a way to maneuver the rough waters between the
Speaker 1: right to be forgotten, which refers to a person's right
Speaker 1: to not have details of their life published up on
Speaker 1: the Internet, and the freedom of speech. Now I can
Speaker 1: appreciate the desire to give people the power to challenge misinformation.
Speaker 1: We have seen how destructive misinformation can be on lots
Speaker 1: of different levels. But I imagine this particular approach is
Speaker 1: going to necessitate some sort of arbitration. Hardy to determine
Speaker 1: which claims are legitimate and which are mere attempts to remove,
Speaker 1: you know, troublesome links. Like for example, if I were
Speaker 1: an executive of a company and I made decisions that
Speaker 1: lead to massive economic loss, I would probably want to
Speaker 1: try and scrub Google of search results that detail my mistakes,
Speaker 1: that reflects poorly on me. Now, maybe those links are
Speaker 1: all two stories that are true, but I don't really
Speaker 1: want them to show up. I mean, I definitely don't
Speaker 1: want them to show up if they're true, So I
Speaker 1: would probably go through the process of trying to challenge that.
Speaker 1: I imagine we're going to see a lot of instances
Speaker 1: of that kind of thing as we move forward, and
Speaker 1: not all cases are going to be as straightforward as
Speaker 1: my rather primitive example just was. Like that one, you
Speaker 1: could argue, all right, well, this is clearly someone who's
Speaker 1: just trying to whitewash their background. That's not a legitimate
Speaker 1: example of misinformation. But in other cases it might be
Speaker 1: harder to make determination. Now you might even argue this
Speaker 1: is the wrong way to go about doing things, because
Speaker 1: really the fault lies with whatever site has published the misinformation,
Speaker 1: and that the EU Court should instead focus on finding
Speaker 1: ways to address that issue rather than go after a
Speaker 1: company that just provides links to stuff. It's not like
Speaker 1: Google wrote all these things, they just index them. But
Speaker 1: you know, it's a really tough challenge to go after
Speaker 1: the source, particularly for sites that aren't located in the EU.
Speaker 1: Your jurisdiction only goes so far. And how do you
Speaker 1: enforce a rule for a server that isn't located in
Speaker 1: your in your jurisdiction. So I don't have the perfect
Speaker 1: solution here. I just think that this particular approach of
Speaker 1: punishing Google for publishing links to information um doesn't really
Speaker 1: get at the problem. And it's really just going to
Speaker 1: create a massive administrative mess um and it's going to
Speaker 1: cost lots and lots of money to go through all
Speaker 1: of this. So I don't know how long this will
Speaker 1: be an action, or if it will be you know,
Speaker 1: tweaked or repealed. It's hard to say. I just I
Speaker 1: can't see it being successful moving forward. But again that
Speaker 1: could just be my own my opic limitations. Okay, we've
Speaker 1: got lots more stories to get through before we go
Speaker 1: any further. Let's take a quick break. Okay, we're back.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal reports that Google is merging its
Speaker 1: ways most of W A. Z and Google Maps divisions
Speaker 1: into a single division and a cost saving measure. So
Speaker 1: the plan is still to maintain separate apps and not
Speaker 1: combine Ways and Maps together. So while the divisions will
Speaker 1: be consolidated, the apps will not be at least not
Speaker 1: for now. Google hasn't indicated that they're going to be
Speaker 1: any layoffs. In fact, the company says there are no
Speaker 1: plans for layoffs following this merger. However, the current CEO
Speaker 1: of Ways Nia Park will have to leave once these
Speaker 1: two departments have finished that unification process and there's been
Speaker 1: a sufficient transition period. For those of y'all who are
Speaker 1: not familiar with Ways, it's a traffic app as in
Speaker 1: real world street traffic, like the kind that cars and
Speaker 1: bikes and stuff are on, and it helps you navigate
Speaker 1: to a destination by suggesting the fastest route and also
Speaker 1: giving you real time updates from user generated inputs. So
Speaker 1: if Ways users up ahead of you note that there
Speaker 1: is a speed trap, they could use the app to say, hey,
Speaker 1: the po po or on the lookout for lead foots,
Speaker 1: so he's off the throttle buster, but you know, probably not.
Speaker 1: In so many words, and boom, you get a little
Speaker 1: indicator along your route that the fuzzes out there looking
Speaker 1: for road demons or something. Since Google purchased Ways back
Speaker 1: in two thousand thirteen, the company has incorporated some of
Speaker 1: ways as features into its own Google Maps app. But
Speaker 1: you might wonder why did Google keep these two divisions
Speaker 1: separate in the first place. Well, that was likely to
Speaker 1: avoid imperial entanglements, as Obi Wan Kenobi would say, which
Speaker 1: is really just my cheeky way of saying that the
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission the f TC here in the United
Speaker 1: States was concerned that the acquisition would lead to decreased
Speaker 1: competition in the space, and so Google, perhaps in an
Speaker 1: effort to ward off any regulatory obstacles, decided to operate
Speaker 1: Ways as a separate entity. According to Noam Bardon, who
Speaker 1: is a former CEO of Ways, having Google as an
Speaker 1: overlord ended up being a bit of a detriment because
Speaker 1: it really kind of inhibited innovation and growth. He posted
Speaker 1: on LinkedIn last year that the company probably would have
Speaker 1: been more successful had it remained independent. Well, hindsight is
Speaker 1: and it's not like we can look at an incredibly
Speaker 1: long list of examples of Google acquisitions that didn't go well, Nope,
Speaker 1: every single thing Google has ever purchased has gone on
Speaker 1: to grow and prosper cough cough. One story I haven't
Speaker 1: really covered and tech stuff yet is about AI generating
Speaker 1: really compelling text Now. I'm specifically referencing chat gpt. That's
Speaker 1: a chat bought powered by open Ai. That's the organization
Speaker 1: that's also responsible for developing doll E and AI app
Speaker 1: that can generate images based on text inputs. Chat Gpt
Speaker 1: has been getting a lot of attention because it's free
Speaker 1: to use and the AI can create some really cool
Speaker 1: responses to text inquiries. Now some are arguing that this
Speaker 1: could be the future of search, in that chat gpt
Speaker 1: synthesizes information from numerous sources and then generates a response
Speaker 1: in real time. Though the app is quick to point
Speaker 1: out it is not actively connected to the Internet, so
Speaker 1: it can't address issues that are currently unfolding. Instead, it
Speaker 1: draws upon a huge database of indexed information. Kind of
Speaker 1: reminds me of Watson when Watson from IBM went up
Speaker 1: on Jeopardy. The responses tend to be presented in a
Speaker 1: way that makes them sound like they're pretty darn legit,
Speaker 1: though folks have also noticed that sometimes the answers that
Speaker 1: chat GPT gives are just plain wrong. That's a problem
Speaker 1: since the presentation of the information appears to be confident
Speaker 1: and reliable, like if you expect to get the real
Speaker 1: answer when you're asking a question, you might trust that
Speaker 1: what you get is legit, and in all cases that
Speaker 1: may not actually work right. There might be some outliers,
Speaker 1: maybe a lot of outliers that if you trust that information,
Speaker 1: you'd be going down the wrong path. So it could
Speaker 1: lead to people thinking that information is you know, inherently trustworthy,
Speaker 1: or it could lead to people, you know, thinking that
Speaker 1: all information is inherently untrustworthy. It could go either way.
Speaker 1: So it's complicated because chat GPT doesn't disclose what sources
Speaker 1: it used in order to generate the responses that it gives,
Speaker 1: so you can't go back and check its work. In
Speaker 1: other words, you can't say, all, right, well, where did
Speaker 1: you hear this from? You're just getting an answer. So
Speaker 1: using chat GPT to get an answer to a question
Speaker 1: makes me think of the old idea of the semantic web.
Speaker 1: That concept involves using the web and getting contextual results
Speaker 1: based upon your preferences, your needs, your current situation. So,
Speaker 1: for example, with the semantic web, you might law again
Speaker 1: to find out how to prepare a specific kind of meal,
Speaker 1: Let's say, like the Thanksgiving turkey, since in the United
Speaker 1: States we had Thanksgiving a couple of weeks back, and
Speaker 1: instead of getting a bunch of links two different recipes
Speaker 1: the way you would with traditional search, the semantic web
Speaker 1: would give you a procedurally generated series of instructions, and further,
Speaker 1: in the ideal implementation, those instructions would be tailored to
Speaker 1: your own level of expertise in the kitchen, as well
Speaker 1: as your own taste preferences. But you know, chat GBT
Speaker 1: looks like it's a bit of a step in that direction,
Speaker 1: except obviously it's not able to adapt to each and
Speaker 1: every user like that. Anyway, there have been a lot
Speaker 1: of concerns about chat GPT, ranging from future students are
Speaker 1: just gonna use AI to outsource homework and thus never
Speaker 1: learn anything all the way to this will destroy Google's
Speaker 1: at business because people will get the answers they want
Speaker 1: without actually having to scroll through a list of links
Speaker 1: from search results and then click through to them. And
Speaker 1: I do think there are reasons to be concerned. I'm
Speaker 1: not quite ready to say that the sky is falling
Speaker 1: just yet. But I'd say like cracks are starting to appear.
Speaker 1: And I do think also just in general, that educators
Speaker 1: really need to concentrate on teaching kids how to think,
Speaker 1: because that's way more important than just memorizing dates and stuff.
Speaker 1: But that's a rant for another time. Carl Rassine, the
Speaker 1: Attorney General for Washington d C, has filed a lawsuit
Speaker 1: against Amazon. Not. The heart of the matter is how
Speaker 1: Amazon between and twenty nineteen was dipping into tips that
Speaker 1: customers were leaving for Amazon delivery drivers. Now, Amazon has
Speaker 1: already had to answer for this once before, because the
Speaker 1: FTC investigated the matter and said, hey, yeah, you are
Speaker 1: stealing from your employees. So the company ended up paying
Speaker 1: nearly sixty two million dollars to drivers and restitution. But
Speaker 1: Racines point is that customers didn't receive any consideration for
Speaker 1: the harm that they experienced because of Amazon's actions, and
Speaker 1: I can kind of get behind that. I mean, if
Speaker 1: I leave a tip for a person, I really want
Speaker 1: that tip to go to the person who was responsible
Speaker 1: for making the experience whatever it was. When I find
Speaker 1: out that a place of business forces employees to surrender
Speaker 1: their tips so that the company can take a cut,
Speaker 1: I get pretty darn upset about that. I mean, the
Speaker 1: company already got it's cut from my business. The tip
Speaker 1: is on top of that. Right now, there is a
Speaker 1: case that you can make that in places like the
Speaker 1: restaurant business here in the United States that you know,
Speaker 1: sometimes you have to pool tips to divvy them up
Speaker 1: to cover staff who traditionally don't get tips at all,
Speaker 1: but they still get paid terrible wages. But again, that's
Speaker 1: going to send me into a rant of how the
Speaker 1: restaurant business in the United States is an absolute racket.
Speaker 1: For those of who are actually in the service industry,
Speaker 1: it is a mess. Not across the board, there are
Speaker 1: places that pay their staff a living wage, but that's
Speaker 1: not what the law allows. The law allows them to
Speaker 1: be criminally underpaid and to become completely dependent upon tips.
Speaker 1: It is messed up anyway. Racine says that Amazon has
Speaker 1: yet to answer for the harm done to consumers in
Speaker 1: the DC area for this practice, and wishes to seek
Speaker 1: civil penalties against the company. Perhaps that Amazon had said, Hey, whoa,
Speaker 1: we already paid the drivers. Plus we don't do that anymore.
Speaker 1: We stopped doing that in twenty nineteen, So where's the problem,
Speaker 1: Like we don't do what you're are angry about, and
Speaker 1: we already paid back the drivers. Now, Rasina is saying
Speaker 1: the lawsuit is necessary to send a message to companies
Speaker 1: that deceiving customers as well as stealing from employees will
Speaker 1: not be tolerated and will be met with penalties. So
Speaker 1: what Rasina is saying is no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 1: You you paid back the drivers, but you still deceived
Speaker 1: the public, and that is what I'm going after you
Speaker 1: for interesting approach. Todd Rakita, the Orney General for the
Speaker 1: US state of Indiana, has gone and sued TikTok, claiming
Speaker 1: the company has violated state consumer protection laws. Now, there
Speaker 1: are a couple of concerns in this lawsuit. In fact,
Speaker 1: there's a pair of lawsuits. So one is really about
Speaker 1: how the Attorney General says TikTok has failed to ensure
Speaker 1: the safety and privacy for its younger users, exposing them
Speaker 1: to inappropriate content and even suggesting such content through the
Speaker 1: use of its algorithms, and also putting user privacy at risk,
Speaker 1: which is really bad when those users tend to be
Speaker 1: under age. The second lawsuit is one that concerns something
Speaker 1: we've heard several times over the last few years that
Speaker 1: TikTok fails to disclose to what degree the Chinese government
Speaker 1: has access to user data on TikTok. Now reps that
Speaker 1: TikTok have said that the app has extensive content controls
Speaker 1: in place, and further that the company is confident it
Speaker 1: can address quote all reasonable US national security concerns end quote.
Speaker 1: TikTok's parent company is Bite Dance, Chinese company, and TikTok
Speaker 1: has repeatedly been scrutinized with concerns that this association gives
Speaker 1: Chinese agents access to US citizens private information. That's a
Speaker 1: concern that TikTok has repeatedly dismissed or denied. As to
Speaker 1: what I think. I mean, I remain uneasy about TikTok,
Speaker 1: but then I also feel uneasy about all social networks
Speaker 1: at this point. It's just, you know, our information is
Speaker 1: being harvested like crazy across multiple platforms. So at some
Speaker 1: level you just start to ask, am I am I
Speaker 1: just not okay with it in this case, but I
Speaker 1: am okay with it in this other case? Or am
Speaker 1: I not okay with it at all? And it turns
Speaker 1: out as I get older, I get more paranoid and
Speaker 1: grouchy So I guess what I'm saying is the jury
Speaker 1: is still out on this. I don't have any evidence
Speaker 1: that the Chinese government has a says to user data
Speaker 1: on TikTok um, but I'm also not entirely satisfied with
Speaker 1: TikTok's answers for that. So yeah, it's tricky. Okay, We've
Speaker 1: got a few more stories to get through before we
Speaker 1: wrap up this episode. Before we do that, let's take
Speaker 1: another quick break. We're back, and now we have a
Speaker 1: quick trio of Twitter related stories. Nothing major. First up,
Speaker 1: as Twitter grew in popularity, we saw the app developer
Speaker 1: community rise up to integrate Twitter functionality into different apps.
Speaker 1: You know, stuff like tweet deck, which allows users to
Speaker 1: create a single view for multiple Twitter accounts, among other things.
Speaker 1: In fact, tweet deck was popular enough for Twitter to
Speaker 1: acquire it back in two thousand eleven. Well, now we're
Speaker 1: seeing that same app developer community turn their attention to Mastodon,
Speaker 1: which some people have migrated to as an alternative to Twitter.
Speaker 1: Mastodon has an inherently different structure from Twitter. It is
Speaker 1: decentralized because Macedon is a platform that allows people to
Speaker 1: set up servers, So joining Masodon means you have to
Speaker 1: choose a home server. You can still communicate with people
Speaker 1: who have chosen a different home server, but your abilities
Speaker 1: on your home server versus what you can do across
Speaker 1: all servers are very different, and app developers have seen
Speaker 1: an opportunity because as millions of people have joined Mastodon,
Speaker 1: they have discovered that Macedon lacks a lot of the
Speaker 1: features and functions that you could find on Twitter. To
Speaker 1: that end, app developers are working to create apps that
Speaker 1: either replicate certain Twitter functions or find new ways to
Speaker 1: add features to the basic Mastodon experience. Now that might
Speaker 1: end up irritating some Mastodon users, people who have been
Speaker 1: on the platform for a while, because this could mean
Speaker 1: that we'll see even more new people flood servers and
Speaker 1: potentially change the communities that have been place for ages.
Speaker 1: But considering people are still wondering if Twitter is going
Speaker 1: to stand the test of time, it might be a
Speaker 1: necessary evil. In other Twitter news, the company is reporting
Speaker 1: going that it's going to charge iOS users a little
Speaker 1: bit more for Twitter Blue when the service comes back online.
Speaker 1: You might remember that Twitter Blue was put on ice
Speaker 1: for the time being after users and trust me, nobody
Speaker 1: could have predicted this after users abused the new verification
Speaker 1: check by creating impersonation accounts and then flooding Twitter with jokes, harassment,
Speaker 1: and other mischief. Who could have seen that coming? I mean,
Speaker 1: it was just out of the blue, right Twitter Blue
Speaker 1: m This appears, by the way, to be a response
Speaker 1: to Apple's policy of taking a cut of each in
Speaker 1: app transaction. So in order to recapture the money that
Speaker 1: would otherwise go to Apple, Musk and team are upping
Speaker 1: Twitter Blues subscription fee from seven bucks a month, which
Speaker 1: is how much it will cost you to subscribe via
Speaker 1: the EBB, to eleven bucks a month if you subscribe
Speaker 1: via the iOS app. I'm not sure how many users
Speaker 1: will be shelling out for subscriptions at all, but I'm
Speaker 1: guessing Elon Musk is hoping it's going to be a lot,
Speaker 1: because reportedly Twitter has been having a doozy of a
Speaker 1: time keeping its AD revenue going and something needs to
Speaker 1: be there to help offset costs. I haven't heard whether
Speaker 1: or not Twitter is going to do this for Google
Speaker 1: and for Android users, because Google also takes a cut
Speaker 1: of an app transactions. When these stories come up, they
Speaker 1: almost always focus on Apple rather than Android, and I
Speaker 1: always find that confusing because both companies do this kind
Speaker 1: of thing. Now, rounding out our Twitter stories is just
Speaker 1: a quick financial bit of news. Reuter's reports that the
Speaker 1: banks that helped finance Musk's acquisition of Twitter are looking
Speaker 1: to margin loans to help take the edge off some
Speaker 1: of the massive debt that the company has, which is
Speaker 1: around their teen billion dollars. Now, part of that debt
Speaker 1: is three billion dollars of unsecured debt and it has
Speaker 1: an interest rate of eleven point seven. So not only
Speaker 1: is Twitter and debt, but the interest payments are enormous,
Speaker 1: and so the banks are looking for ways to kind
Speaker 1: of migrate some of that debt into other forms that
Speaker 1: from a non technical perspective are are just not quite
Speaker 1: so scary. Now. Originally the plan was to sell debt
Speaker 1: to investors who would buy the debt in the hopes
Speaker 1: of being repaid. Right, you you buy the debt with
Speaker 1: the hope of the the the company that has the
Speaker 1: debt paying you back with interest. But then you know, everybody,
Speaker 1: banks and investors were everybody was looking at the chaos
Speaker 1: that was going on on Twitter, and essentially everyone said, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe not, because who the heck is going to buy
Speaker 1: up debt when it looks like the company could collapse
Speaker 1: in any second. Now, all that could change when we
Speaker 1: get into three, because if the team at Twitter can
Speaker 1: keep things afloat, then it could end up building up
Speaker 1: more confidence in the company and maybe then we'll see
Speaker 1: investors buy up debt. But for the time being, that's
Speaker 1: on hold. Something I didn't talk about last month was
Speaker 1: how the Board of Supervisors for San Francisco had approved
Speaker 1: a really scary proposal that would have given police the
Speaker 1: right to use robots equipped with explosives to use offensively
Speaker 1: in situations where deadly force was warranted, such as an
Speaker 1: incidents involving armed suspects. Now, that decision promptly sparked an
Speaker 1: understandable critical response, as people worried that the police would
Speaker 1: potentially abuse that technology or that any mistakes made would
Speaker 1: lead to absolute tragedy. The initial vote past eight to
Speaker 1: three in favor, but this particular proposal needs two votes.
Speaker 1: In fact, all of these proposals need to votes to
Speaker 1: move forward before it goes to the Mayor's office and
Speaker 1: lo and behold. After that initial wave of criticism hit
Speaker 1: the for this policy, that same group of supervisors then
Speaker 1: voted eight to three to ban the use of lethal
Speaker 1: force by police robots, which sends the original proposal back
Speaker 1: for review where it could be altered or maybe just
Speaker 1: outright scrapped. But it sounds to me like the board
Speaker 1: had a real change of heart once folks pointed out
Speaker 1: the bombs on wheels controlled by police could lead to
Speaker 1: truly catastrophic consequences. Speaking of robots, Sony says it has
Speaker 1: the technology to manufacture humanoid robots quickly. All Sony needs
Speaker 1: is a reason. Kind of the cdo of Sony Group
Speaker 1: Corporation essentially said that once the company identifies a good
Speaker 1: use case for humanoid robots, it could go into manufacturing
Speaker 1: those robots pretty darned quickly. And moreover, there are several
Speaker 1: other companies that are in a similar position. It's just
Speaker 1: that we don't really have a compelling use case yet,
Speaker 1: and I can kind of understand that. First of all, though,
Speaker 1: making a robust humanoid robot comes with a ton of
Speaker 1: engineering challenges. It turns out that stuff that most people
Speaker 1: take for granted can be really hard problems for roboticists
Speaker 1: to solve. But assuming that you have solved most or
Speaker 1: even just some of those engineering problems, you still have
Speaker 1: the question of what does this robot do? Though, usually
Speaker 1: engineers design robots for a very narrow spectrum of tasks,
Speaker 1: which reduces the variables that the robot has to contend
Speaker 1: with and makes the design and engineering processes easier. Now
Speaker 1: note I did not say easy, only easy. Year. If
Speaker 1: all your robot has to do is weld four points
Speaker 1: on a vehicle chassis as it goes down the production line,
Speaker 1: well you don't have to worry about the robot being
Speaker 1: able to open doors, or climb stairs or even look
Speaker 1: remotely humanoid. None of that matters, And honestly, I think
Speaker 1: the best use for robots is to tackle jobs that
Speaker 1: people are not good at, or jobs that are one
Speaker 1: of the three classic d s and robotics, which is dirty, dangerous,
Speaker 1: or dull. Otherwise, if a human can already do the
Speaker 1: job perfectly, well, there's no real reason to make a
Speaker 1: robot do the job because we've already solved the problem
Speaker 1: because a human can do the thing. But if the
Speaker 1: job is dirty, dangerous, or dull, then making a robot
Speaker 1: to do that thing makes sense because it spares a
Speaker 1: human from having to deal with it, and that human
Speaker 1: can go on to do something that isn't dirty, dangerous,
Speaker 1: or dull. So those are really the only cases I
Speaker 1: can think of u apart from maybe some applications in
Speaker 1: social robotics, which is its own weird kind of of realm.
Speaker 1: It's it's weird because you don't have to just take
Speaker 1: into consideration what can the robots do. You also have
Speaker 1: to take into consideration how do people react to the robots.
Speaker 1: And it's the people's side that really can be hard
Speaker 1: for engineers to tackle because it's not necessarily logical. But
Speaker 1: that's a matter for a deeper dive than some future podcast. Finally,
Speaker 1: thanks to Gismoto, I am now aware of the Dyson Zone.
Speaker 1: The Dyson Zone is the name for a pair of
Speaker 1: noise canceling headphones from Dyson, you know, the vacuum cleaner company.
Speaker 1: These headphones have multiple microphones designed to detect noise from
Speaker 1: the outside world, and then the headphone speakers counteract that
Speaker 1: noise by generating sound waves that are in effect opposite
Speaker 1: to the ones from the outside of the headphones. That's
Speaker 1: just how active noise canceling headphones work because opposite waves
Speaker 1: cancel each other out. Anyway, a couple of these noise
Speaker 1: canceling microphone are unique to Dyson because they are designed
Speaker 1: to pick up the noise generated by an air filtration
Speaker 1: system built into the headphones themselves. Yep, these headphones have
Speaker 1: an active air filter component. So there's this visor like
Speaker 1: peripheral maybe I should say it's it's like a face mask,
Speaker 1: and it extends the active filtration system to fit over
Speaker 1: the nose and mouth, although it does not make a
Speaker 1: perfect seal, so Dyson has already said this is not
Speaker 1: a device that will protect you from stuff like COVID.
Speaker 1: It connects to the headphones via magnets, so you can
Speaker 1: wear the headphones without this if you want to. From
Speaker 1: what Gizmodo says, it sounds like the headphones are pretty
Speaker 1: heavy even without the visor, but when you put it
Speaker 1: on there you know they've got a considerable heft to them. Now,
Speaker 1: when the visor is attached, you can have filtered air
Speaker 1: blasted at your breathing holes. So if you like listening
Speaker 1: to your Thumbosaurus tunes, Do to Do, but you happened
Speaker 1: to sit next to a stinky co worker, Well I
Speaker 1: got to your solution right here. Sure, you'll look like
Speaker 1: one of those old stock photography images. Of a cyborg
Speaker 1: or something. And sure you'll need to show out nearly
Speaker 1: a grand to buy these headphones, but you'll get fresh
Speaker 1: air for a little bit until the battery wears out.
Speaker 1: That happens to be about four hours if you have
Speaker 1: it on the lowest fan setting, or an hour and
Speaker 1: a half if it's on the highest. And yeah, it
Speaker 1: is gonna cost you nine dollars, so it's probably gonna
Speaker 1: weed out a lot of potential buyers. You can pre
Speaker 1: order a pair at a Dyson store starting in March.
Speaker 1: If you've got a grand burning a hole in your
Speaker 1: pocket and you don't mind looking, I'm gonna say odd
Speaker 1: as you listen to your music and you breathe your
Speaker 1: filtered air, Yeah, you should check it out. If you
Speaker 1: haven't seen pictures of the diceon zone, look it up.
Speaker 1: Because I looked at it, and I thought this can't
Speaker 1: be a real thing, right, and it's certainly it cost
Speaker 1: a grand, right, And I'm never gonna see someone wearing
Speaker 1: one of these, right, And I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: in Atlanta, I'm not likely to see someone wearing this
Speaker 1: unless they're really being like a tech poser or something.
Speaker 1: But you know who knows maybe maybe it will become
Speaker 1: the must have Christmas gift next year for people who
Speaker 1: really have a whole lot of money to spend on
Speaker 1: Christmas gifts. That's kind of out of my price range. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's it for this episode of tech News. Hope you
Speaker 1: enjoyed it. If you have any suggestions for topics for
Speaker 1: me to cover on tech Stuff, including suggestions for big
Speaker 1: tech news items that came out over the year twenty two,
Speaker 1: because I'm doing a wrap up episode pretty soon, let
Speaker 1: me know. You can get in touch a couple of
Speaker 1: different ways. One way is you can download the i
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app. It's free to download and use, and
Speaker 1: navigate on over to tech Stuff using the little handy
Speaker 1: dandy search bar and they're you will see a little
Speaker 1: microphone icon. If you click on that, you can leave
Speaker 1: a voice message up to thirty seconds in length and
Speaker 1: let me know what you would like to hear. If
Speaker 1: you would prefer not to do that, which I totally get,
Speaker 1: then you can leave me a message on Twitter. The
Speaker 1: handle for the show is tech Stuff hs W and
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. YEA. Tech Stuff
Speaker 1: is an i Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio, visit the I heart Radio app, Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.